Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Epistle to the Romans

ἌΡΗ Ἰο θῖο. ἕω
okies! csi

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009

httos://archive.org/details/criticalexegetico6meye

ΚΡ ταν νον
PNK bh ἐδ ἢ
F git. eM Ἂν,

‘ a ih:

o τὰ 5

ee

CRITICAL AND EXEGHTICAL

HAND-BOOK

THE EPISTLE 10 THE ROMANS

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tx.D.

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

Rey. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A., AND REV. EDWIN JOHNSON, B.A.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY

TIMOTHY DWIGHT,

PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE.

NEW YORK
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS
10 AND 12 DEY STREET

5 1884

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.

PREFACE

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

In Dr. Dickson’s General Preface to the English Translation of Meyer’s
Commentary on the New Testament, which is placed at the beginning
of the volumes on the Epistle to the Romans, the following sentences
descriptive of its character are found. ‘‘ In estimating the character and
value of Dr. Meyer’s work, it is essential that we should always bear in
mind the precise standpoint from which it is written. That is simply
and solely the standpoint of the exegete, who endeavours in the exercise
of his own independent judgment to arrive, by the use of the proper
means, at the historical sense of Scripture. His object is not to seek
support for the doctrines, nor does he bind himself or regulate his
operations by the definitions or decisions, of any particular church.
On the contrary, he reaches his results by a purely exegetical process,
and places them, when so found, at the disposal of the Church.’’ In
other words, his Commentary is what an exegetical commentary ought
to be. For this reason, the introduction of this work, a few years since,
to the knowledge of English and American students of the New Testa-
ment who had no acquaintance with the language in which it was origi-
nally written, was an event of much significance in the progress of Bibli-
cal learning. In our own country, by reason of the peculiar circum-
stances of our history, the study of Theology began, and for a long
period was carried forward, almost wholly on the doctrinal and philo-
sophical side. A few scholars, indeed, like Moses Stuart and Josiah W.
Gibbs, investigated the Scriptures in the purely exegetical way, and thus
became leaders in the right path. But itis only within the last quarter
of a century that such investigation has made its great advasce move-
ment among us and assumed for itself its proper relative position. That
the effect of German scholarship in this department of study has been
greatly beneficial to our Theology cannot be questioned. It has tended
directly and strongly to the end of bringing us to the immediate, fair-
minded, intelligent examination of the New Testament words, and to
the interpretation of them, as the thing of primary importance, according

iv PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

to strict grammatical and linguistic principles. No better example of the
right method of explaining and commenting has ever been presented to
the student than that which Meyer has given. He was eminently fitted,
both by his learning and his spirit, to be an interpreter of the Apostolic
writings, and, like all candid and large-hearted seekers after the truth,
he entered more fully into the possession of its treasures as the years of
his life moved onward. The knowledge and influence of such a commen-
tator’s writings are of peculiar value in the study of the Epistle to the
Romans, in the atmosphere of which our theological thinking needs
continually to be brought to measure and adjust-itself by the true prin-
ciples of interpretation.

The design of the publishers of the present edition of Meyer’s work
is to place it within the reach of the largest possible number of theo-
logical students and ministers, in order that the influence of its profound
scholarship, its true methods, its honest truth-seeking purpose, its relig-
ious spirit and its manly confidence in Christianity may be most widely
extended. The commentary is printed in full and precise accordance
with the English Translation—except that, in many instances, references
to authorities and to Greek writers are transferred from the page to foot-
notes—and by an arrangement with the English publishers. The
translation of this volume was made, as indicated on the title-page, by
the Rev. John C. Moore and the Rev. Edwin Johnson; the work of
the former covering the first eight chapters, and that of the latter
the remainder of the Epistle. The translation, it is believed, has com-
mended itself to those who have used it since its first publication. The
Rev. Dr. William P. Dickson, of the University of Glasgow, was the
superintending editor of the work when this portion of it was pre-
pared, and the entire translation, so long as his editorship continued,
was reviewed and revised by him, As the Commentary on the Romans
was the first of the series which was published, Dr. Dickson introduced
it by aGeneral Preface. This preface it has been thought proper to omit
in this edition, inasmuch as the principal facts connected with Meyer’s
life, which it contained, have been already stated in the volume on the
Acts, edited by Dr. Ormiston, and because the Commentary is now so
much better known than when it was first issued in Edinburgh, that such
introductory words seem to be scarcely necessary. The Topical Index at
the end of the volume has been prepared by the Rev. G. F. Behringer,
of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a general supervision of
the work, while passing through the press.

As to my own share in the present volume, as American Editor, I may
be permitted to say a few words. The limitations of the volume have
allowed me to add only about eighty pages of annotations. Within so

PREFACE BY ΤῈ AMERICAN EDITOR. Vv

small a space it was manifestly impossible to consider with fulness or
freedom all the points of interest which the Epistle presents, or even to
set forth and establish by arguments the view which I hold of its character,
its design and purpose, its line of thought, its circle of doctrinal teach-
ing’, or what, if the expression may be allowed me, I may call its peculiar
Paulinism. The discussion of these and other questions would demand
-avolume, which I hope that, at some future time, I may be able to
prepare. All that I have attempted to do, at present, is to give some
brief notes, at the close of each chapter, upon words or sentences re-
specting which it has seemed to me that suggestions might be helpful
towards a true understanding of the Apostle’s meaning. In connection
with the setting forth of this meaning, I have occasionally raised the
inquiry whether Paul intended to declare a particular doctrine in a
particular verse or passage, and have sometimes endeavored to show
that he had no such intention. But I have not deemed it to be within
my sphere in these annotations—a sphere which is purely exegetical—
to affirm or to deny that any such doctrine belonged to the Pauline
system. For this reason, also, as well as because the book 1s intended,
as the English editor says in his Preface, for the professional scholar,
who can endure in a writer some views with which he may not himself
agree, I have not considered it necessary to discuss any doctrinal
opinions to which Meyer has incidentally given expression in his re-
marks upon points with which they have no vital and essential con-
nection. I have purposely made but few references in the notes to
commentators and writers upon the Epistle. As I have long been en-
gaged in the work of theological instruction in the department of New
Testament Greek, it will not be supposed, I trust, that the omission is
due to any want of reading the works of such writers, or of acknowledg-
ment of what I have gained in my studies from their views or thoughts.
Occasional allusions to some of the most recent authors appeared to me
not inappropriate, but the limited space at my command rendered it im-
practicable to mention names, as Meyer himself has done so constantly
and abundantly. The edition of Meyer’s work on the Epistle which was
published about two years since by Dr, Bernhard Weiss has been referred
to somewhat frequently, because it gives—where he differs from Meyer,
as well as where he adds his assent to what Meyer had said—the views of
the scholar who is, at present, perhaps more prominent than any other,
in this line of studies, in Germany. It is a matter of satisfaction to me
that in some important points, respecting which my own opinions were
formed many years ago, I find myself confirmed by the words of this
very able writer. In some cases mentioned in my notes, on the other
hand, where I am constrained to take a position opposite to his, I hope

--

ΥἹ PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

that the reasons presented may be regarded as not unworthy of serious
consideration. Ina number of these cases I have the pleasing con-
sciousness of standing with Meyer himself.

If the few pages which I have inserted in this volume shall prove to
be helpful to any students of the Pauline writings—especially, if they
shall te viewed as, in any measure, deserving of a place in such near
connection with the words and thoughts of a commentator whom I have
long held in so much honour, I shall be glad to have had the privilege
of associating my name, even in the most unpretending way, with his,
as his work goes forth for a wider circulation among the clergy and
the members of Theological Schools in our country. To those who have
been connected with the Divinity School of Yale College during the
past twenty-six years,—in whose life and work I have a personal and
most friendly interest, —I commend the volume in all its parts.

Timotny Dwieut,
Yair Cotiecs, February 18, 1884.

Norz.—In my own annotations, the edition of Meyer’s work by Weiss is com-
monly referred to as Weiss ed. Mey. The letters T. R. are used to designate
the Textus Receptus. The references to Winer’s Grammar are tuo the American
translation. Imay state that, for the convenience of students, I have inserted
the numbers of the pages of the American translations of both Buttmann’s and
Winer’s Grammars, wherever Meyer has cited these works in his notes, In
regard to other abbreviations, see page xxiv.

The reader will allow me to correct one or two errors, which were accident-
ally overlooked by me in revising the proof-sheets of my notes. In the first
line of page 75, ““ οἰκονόμους), so etc.” should be read, instead of *‘oix). So ete.”
In the seventh line of page 79, for ‘‘ Gal. iii.”” read Gal. vy. On page 108, Note
XX., line 7, for ‘*to the approving’ read ‘‘of the approving.’’ Page 254, line
3, for ‘‘ ver. 20’’ read “ἐν. 20,” and page 255, line 2, for ‘‘ vv. 12-19” read “ἐν.
12-19,” and at the end of Note LXXIII. read “ver. 20’ for “‘ ver. 19." On
the other hand, on page 294, line 15 of Note LXXXVI., for ‘* v. 25” read “ ver.
25.’’ On page 289, Note LXXVII. in the last two lines let the words “ first”
and ‘‘ second” exchange places. These cases include all, I think, which are
of any importance and which the reader will, without trouble, adjust for
himself, PD,

PREFACE

SPECIALLY WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ENGLISH
EDITION.

Ir cannot but be of great importance in the interests of a thorough,
sure, and comprehensive knowledge, that the results of progressive
effort and research in the wide domain of the sciences should be
mutually exchanged and spread from people to people, and from tongue
to tongue. In this way of a living fellowship of mind, penetrating to
the farthest limits of civilization, the various scientific peculiarities of
national development and culture are necessarily more and more elevated
into common property as regards their excellences, while their several
defects and shortcomings are reciprocally compensated and supplied ; and
thus the honest efforts and labours of individuals, pressing forward in com-
mon towards a deeper and clearer knowledge, are at once encouraged by
their mutual respect and stimulated by a generous rivalry. Especially,
and in an eminent degree, does this hold true within the sphere devoted
to the highest object of human effort—the sphere of scientific theology.
To the cultivation of this science, in accordance with its healthy life
springing from the Divine Word and with its destination embracing time
and eternity, belongs inan eminent sense the noble vocation of applying
every gift received from God freely and faithfully to the service of the
great whole—the building up of His kingdom. In its view the nations
with their various characteristic powers, capacities, and tongues, are
members of the one body, to which they are to hail each other as
belonging in the fellowship of the one Head, which is Christ, and of the
one Spirit, whose motions and influences are not restrained by any limits
of nation or of Janguage.

From this point of view it cannot but be in every sense a matter for
congratulation that in our day more than formerly those literary works
of German theology, which have on their native soil obtained a fair
position in the literature of the science to which they relate, should by
translation into the English tongue have that more extended field opened

ὙΠ] PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

up to them, whose only limit is the ever-increasing diffusion and prev-
alence of that language in both hemispheres. Thus German theological
labor goes forth into the wide world ; becomes at home in distant lands
and in a foreign dress ; communicates what has been given to it, in
order, by the mutual working of the Spirit, to receive in its turn from
abroad ; stimulates so far as in it lies, in order that it may itself find
stimulus and furtherance, instruction and correction ; and in all this lends
its aid, that the divided theological strivings of the age and the various
tendencies of religious national character may be daily brought closer
together, and united in the eternal focus of all genuine science, which
is truth and nothing but truth—and in the realin of theology the high-
est truth of all, that of divine revelation.

In the transplanting of the literary products of German theology to
the soil of the English language the well-known publishing house of the
Messrs. T. & T. Clark, of Edinburgh, have earned special distinction ;
and their efforts, supported by select and able professional scholars, have
already found, and continue increasingly to find, an appreciation cor-
responding to their merits both in British and American circles, I have
therefore readily and willingly given my consent to the proposal of the
above-mentioned honorable publishers to set on foot and to issue an
English translation of my Commentary on the New Testament ; and
with no less readiness have my esteemed German publishers, Vanden-
hoeck and Ruprecht in Gittingen, declared their agreement to it. I
earnestly wish that the version thus undertaken, the first portion of
which is given to the public in the present volume, may not fail to
receive, in the field of the English language and of the science which it
represents, an indulgent and kindly reception, such as, during a long
series of years, has been accorded to the German work by the German
theological public. And if I venture to couple with this wish some
measure of a hope corresponding to it, Iam induced to do so simply
by the fact that even in the German idiom these works have already
found their way, in no inconsiderable numbers, both to England and
America.

Respecting the object and intention of my Commentaries no special
explanation is needed, since, in point of fact, these are obvious on the
face of them. They aim at exactly ascertaining and establishing on due
grounds the purely historical sense of Scripture. This aim is so clear
and so lofty, that all the produce of one’s own thoughts and subjective
speculation must fall entirely into the background, and must not be
allowed to mix up anything of its own with what objectively stands
forth in the revelation of the New Testament and simply seeks to be
understood just as itstands. For exegesis is a historical science, because

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION, ΙΧ

the sense of Scripture, the investigation of which is its task, can only be
regarded and treated as an historical fact; as positively given, it can
only be known, proved, established, and set forth so as to be clearly and
surely ynderstood, by the positive method of studying the grammar, the
usus loguendi, and the connection in detail as well as in its wider and
widest sense. Exegetical research therefore cannot regard any defini-
tions of the doctrinal system ofa Church as binding or regulative for its
operations, as if forsooth, in cases where the Confession has spoken, its
duty were to seek only what it was ὦ priori directed to seek, and there-
upon to find only what it so seeks. No! it is just when perfectly
unprejudiced, impartial, and free—and thus all the more consciously
and consistently guided simply and solely by those historically given
factors of its science —that it is able with genuine humility to render to
the Church, so far as the latter maintains its palladium in the pure Word
of God, real and wholesome service for the present and the future.
Unhappily the Church of Rome, by its unchangeable tradition beyond
the pale of Scripture, and now completely by its Vaticanum, has refused
to receive such service in ali points affecting its peculiar doctrine. But
with the Evangelical Church it is otherwise. ΠΟΛ ΟΝ deep may be
the heavings of conflicting elements within it, and however long may be
the duration of the painful throes which shall at last issue—according to
the counsel of God and when His hour has come—in a happier time for
the Church when men’s minds shall have attained a higher union, the pure
word of Scripture, in its historical truth and clearness and in its world-
subduing divine might, disengaged from every addition of human
scholasticism and its dividing formulae, must and shall at length become
once more a wonderful power of peace unto unity of faith and love.
The Evangelical Church bears inalienably in its bosom the Word as the
living and imperishable leaven of that final development.

Such is the ideal goal, which the scientific exposition of Scripture,
while it desires nothing else than to elucidate and further the true his-
torical understanding of Scripture, may never lose sight of in regard to
the Church, which is built on the Word. But how limited is the meas-
ure of the attainments and of the gifts conferred upon the individual !
and how irresistibly must it impel him, in the consciousness of his
fragmentary contributions, to the humbling confession, ‘‘ Not as though
Thad already attained !’’? Nevertheless let each strive faithfully and
honestly, according to what has been given to him, for that noble goal
in the field of Scripture-science, in firm assurance that God can bless
even what is little and be mighty in what is weak. And so may the
gracious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ accompany my hum-
ble labors on His Word, as they are now going forth in the dress of

Σ PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

another language to far distant brethren, with the blessing on which
all success depends, that they may conduce to the knowledge of His
Truth, to the service of His Church, and to the glory of His Holy
Name.
Dr. HEIN. AUG. WILH. MEYER,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH.
Hannover, March, 1873.

PREFACE

TO THE GERMAN EDITION.

Forry years have now elapsed since my Commentaries on the New
Testament were first given to the public. The first edition of the first
volume-—the weak commencement—appeared in January, 1832. A
scientific work, which has passed through a long course of development
and still continues that course, has always a history—a biography—of
its own, which of course is intimately interwoven with that of its author.
Yet in this retrospect I can only be filled with praise and thanksgiving
to the divine grace ; of myself I have nothing to say. The indulgence
of friendly readers, which I have experienced so long, will not, I hope,
fail to be still extended to me, when my day’s work is drawing to its end.

This fifth edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is
based—as was of course to be expected, and may be inferred from the
increase in the number of the sheets—on a new and careful revision of
the fourth edition, which was issued in 1865. This enlargement—
although in particular instances much has been abridged or even deleted
—could not be avoided, if on the one hand the more recent publications
relating to the Epistle were to meet with due attention,’ and if on the

1 T could not take into consideration the treatise of Dr. Eklund : “ σάρξ vo-
cabulum, quid ap. Paulum significet,’’ Lund, May, 1872, which, cautiously pro-
ceeding by a purely exegetical method, in the definition of the ethical side of
that notion arrives substantially at the explanation of Augustine and Luther—
a result, nevertheless, in which I am still precluded from concurring, as regards
the Epistle to the Romans, by the contrast of σώρξ and νοῦς, as well as that of
σώρξ and the moral ἐγώ in ch, vii.—I must here also make supplementary
mention of Hilgenfeld’s dissertation ** Petrus in Rom und Johannes in Kl. Asien”
(Zeitschrift, 1872. 3); in it he declares himself in favor of the nearly contem-
porary martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome as a historically accredited fact,
and, ἃ5 1 must still even after the doubts of Lipsius assume, with just reason,
even as respects its independence of the Simon legend.—During the very
printing of this Preface there have come into my hands the two dissertations
by Harmsen, who defends the reference of the doxology in ix. 5 to God, and
Hilgenfeld, who maintains the genuineness of chapters xv, and xvi, (in the
latter’s Zeitschrift, 1872. 4).

xi PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION.

other hand the general plan of the book—according to which it has to
provide along with the exposition itself a critical view of the interpreta-
tions contrasting with it, and so of the detailed history of the exegesis
—was to be preserved.

But on what portion of the New Testament could the Jabour and
troubie—which are being continually renewed, wherever exegetical sci-
ence conscientiously strives to reach its pure and clear historic aim—be
less spared than on this, the grandest and richest in contents of all the
Apostle’s letters? Especially at the present time. The Epistle to the
Romans still stands forth as a never silent accuser confronting the Ro-
man ecclesiasticism, which has strained to the uttermost spiritual arro-
gance in the dethroned head, and Loyolist submissiveness in the mem-
bers, of its hierarchy (perinde ac si essent cadavera) ; it is still the stead-
fast divine charter of the Reformation, as formerly our Luther found
mainly in it the unyielding fulerum by the aid of which he upheaved
the firmly-knit Roman structure from its old foundations, Amidst the
vehement and pretentious conflicts, which continually surround us in the
field of evangelic belief, we still have in this Epistle—just because it sets
clearly before us the pure apostolic Gospel in its deepest and most com-
prehensive scope—the clearest and most prominent criterion for the rec-
ognition of what belongs to the pith and marrow of the Confession, in
order that we may distinguish with steadfast eye and conscience that
which is essential from all the fleeting, temporary, controversial or
scholastic forms, with which it has become connected and interwoven
through the historical relations of ecclesiastical symbols ; a distinction,
to which even the Introduction to the Formula Concordiae, although
this most of all bears the theological impress of the time, significantly
enough points, and which better meets the exigencies of the restless
present than the overbearing cry—recklessly transcending limit or meas-
ure—after unity of doctrine, which yet does not remove or even so
much as conceal the dissensions among the criers themselves. The
unity which they desire—were it uniformly established, as it were in the
Jump, for ad/ doctrinal definitions of the Confession—would be Roman,
and the very negation of truth and truthfulness in the church, because
it would be contrary to the freedom of conscience in the understanding
of Scripture, which has its ground and support, its standard and
limit, and the holy warrant of its upright confidence, not beyond the
pale of Scripture, but iz it, and in it alone.

Let us only advance with clearness along the straight path of pure
historical exegesis, in virtue of which we have always to receive what
Scripture gives to us, and never to give to it aught of our own. Other-
wise we run a risk of falling into the boundless maze of an interpreta-

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. xill

tion of Scripture at our own pleasure, in which artificial and violent ex-
pedients are quickly enough resorted to, with a view to establisn results
which are constructed from foregone premisses, and to procure doctrines
which are the creations—obtruded on Scripture—of a self-made world of
thought and its combinations. Exegetes of this sort—whose labours,

we may add, are usually facilitated by a lack of sure and thorough phi-
lological culture,’ and of needful respect for linguistic authorities—have
the dubious merit of provoking refutation more than others do, and
thereby indirectly promoting the elucidation of the true sense of Script-
ure. Yet they may, as experience shows, attain fora time an influence,
especially over younger theologians who have not yet reached the stead-
iness and soberness of mature exegetic judgment, by the charm of nov-
elty and of a certain originality, as well as of a dialectic art, which veils
wits mistakes so that they they are not at once recognized—an influence
under which good abilities are misled and learn to be content with ex-
tracting from the words of Scripture a meaning which, originating from
their own presuppositions, belongs really to themselves. Indeed, if
such a mode of handling Scripture, with its self-deceptions and with its
often very singular caprices, could become dominant (which, looking to
the present state and progress of science, 1 do not reckon possible),
there would be reason to fear that gradually the principle of Scripture
authority, which preserved in its full objectivity is the aegis of the
evangelical churches, would become ¢lusory. All the worse and more
confusing is it, when such an exegesis employs as the organ of present-
ing and communicating its views a mode of expression, the quaint
drapery of which hinders us from clearly discerning the substance of
the meaning lying beneath it, and in fact frequently permits the effort

1 We theologians are far too much given to neglect a comprehensive and
precise knowledge of the Greek grammar. If the exegete of the present day
supposes himself adequately furnished with such a Grammar as that of Rost
(whose memory, as my former Gymnasial teacher, I gratefully revere) he is
mistaken ; it is no longer sufficient. We ought not to overlook the progress of
philology in the field of the classics, but should be diligent in turning to ac-
count, for the New Testament, whatever the contributions of the present day
furnish. Otherwise we neglect an eminently important part of our duty. I
cannot but here recommend very urgently to the theologian, in the interest of
pure exegesis, the second edition of Kiithner’s Large Grammar (in two parts,
1869-1872)—to which my citations will always henceforth refer—as the most
complete and most solid work on the structure of the Greek language regarded
from the present standpoint of science. This entirely remodelled edition isa
glorious monument of thorough and comprehensive erudition, and of clear and
ripe familiarity with the genius of the language of classic Hellenism.

ΧΙΥ PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION.

of translating it into current forms of speech, which cannot mislead, to
be attended with but dubious success.’

For the critical remarks the part of the editio octava of Tischendorf’s
New Testament, which inciudes the present Epistle, was in good time
to be turned to account. As it deviates in many cases from the edztio
septima, and this diversity is partly due to a modification of the critical
principles adopted, I have deemed it advisable to specify not merely the
readings of the octava, but also those of the septima. The one I have
indicated by Tisch. (8), the other by Zwsch. (7); but where the two
editions agree, I put merely Tisch.

With confidence then in God, who sits as Ruler and knows how to
guide all things well, this work is left to make its way once more into
the much agitated theological world. May He ward off harm, so far
as it contains what.is erroneous, and grant His blessing, so far as it may*
minister to the correct, unstinted, and undisguised understanding of His
revealed Word.

Dr. MEYER.
Hannover, 24th July, 1872.

1 In presence of such wretched evils of style we may be allowed to recall the
simple rule, which the epigrammatist bids the rhetoricians (Andthol. Pal. xi.
144, 5 f.) lay to heart :

Nov - aa ὭΣ AG ny? aa , ee
ἁνοὺν UTOKELOUGAL VEL τοῖς YPAUUATL Kas φράσιν αὐτῶν

εἶναι κοινοτέραν, ὥστε νοεῖν ἃ λέγεις.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

[For Commentaries, and collections of Notes, embracing the whole New
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew.
The following list includes works which deal with the Apostolic or the Pauline
Epistles generally, or which treat specially of the Epistle to the Romans,
Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a few exceptions,
been excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own account, they
have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work.
Several of the older works named are of little value ; others are chiefly doctri-
nal or controversial. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed
by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended
denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted. + marks the
date of the author’s death, ο. = circa, an approximation to it. |

ApBariaRD (Peter), { 1142, Scholastic : Commentariorum super 8. Pauli Episto-
lam ad Romanos libri v. [Opera.]
Axxstus [or ΗΑΤ ΕΒ] (Alexander), { 1565, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Disputationes
in Epistolam ad Romanos, cum P. Melancthonis praefatione.
8°, Vitemb. 1553.
ALEXANDER Natalis. See Norn (Alexandre).
Autine (Jacobus), { 1679, Prof. Theol. at Gréningen : Commentarius theoreti-
co-practicus in Epistolam ad Romanos. [Opera. ] 2°, Amstel. 1686.
AMBIANENSIS (Georgius), { 1657, Capuchin monk at Paris : Trina Pauli theologia
. . Seu omnigena in universas Pauli epistolas commentaria exegetica,
tropologica et anagogica. 29, Paris. 1649-50.
AMBROSIASTER [or Psrupo-AmBrostus], ¢. 380, generally identified with Hilarius
the Deacon: Commentarius in Epistolas xiii. B. Pauli. [Ambrosii
Opera. ]
AnsELMus [or Hervevus], c. 1100: Enarrationes in omnes 8. Pauli Epistolas.
2°, Paris. 1533.
Aquinas (Thomas), + 1274, Scholastic : Expositio in omnes Epistolas 8. Pauli.
2°, Basil. 1475 al.
ArBorevs (Joannes), ο. 1550, Prof. Theol. at Paris: Commentarius in omnes

Pauli Epistolas. 29, Paris. 1553.
AnreEtius (Benedictus), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne: Commentarii in omnes
Epistolas 1). Pauli, et canonicas, 2°, Morgiis, 1683.

Baupur (Friedrich), + 1627, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg : Commentarius in
omnes Epistolas apostoli Pauli. . . (Separately, 1608-1630).

49, Francof. 1644 al.

Baumeartren (Sigmund Jakob), { 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des

Briefes Pauli an die Romer. 4”, Halae, 1749.
BaumGarten-Crustus (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena:
Commentar zum Rémerbrief. 8°, Jena, 1844.

Berpa Venerabilis, { 735, Monk at Jarrow : Expositio in Epistolas Pauli [a Ca-
tena from the works of Augustine, probably by Florus Lugdunensis,
ὁ. 852], et In Epistolas septem catholicas liber. [Opera.]

XV1 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

Breen (Jean-Théodore), Τὺ. C. Prof. of Or. Lang. at Louvain : Commentarius
in Epistolam ὃ. Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lovani, 1854.
Brrr (Joseph Agar), A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
London, 1877.
3ELSHAM (Thomas), { 1829, Unitarian minister in London: The Epistles of
Paul the Apostle translated, with an exposition and notes.
49 Lond. 1822.
BrENECKEE (Wilhelm), { 1837, retired Hamburg merchant : Der Brief Paulian die

Romer erlautert ; 8°, Heidelb. 1831.
Translated... . 8°, Lond. 1854,
Bispine (August), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Mimster: Exegetisches Handbuch zu
den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 8°, Minster, 1854-8 al,

Borume (Christian Friedrich), { 1844, Pastor at Lucka near Altenburg : Epis-
tola Pauli ad Romanos Graece cum commentario perpetuo.

8°, Lips. 1806.

Brats (Etienne de), ο. 1680, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Epistolae Pauli ad Roma-

nos analysis paraphrastica cum notis. 4°, Salmurii, 1670.
Brent (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgard : Commentarius in Epistolam ad
Romanos. 2°, Francof. 1564 al.

Brown (David), D.D., Prof. Theol. Free Church College, Aberdeen : Commen-
tary on the Epistle to the Romans, embracing the last results of crit-
icism. 12°, Glasg. 1860.
Brown (John), D.D., { 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to the United Presbyterian
Church, Edinburgh : Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul. . .

to the Romans. 8°, Edin. 1857.

Bruno, ¢ 1101, Founder of the Carthusian Order: Commentarius in Omnes
Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1509.
Bucer (Martin), ¢ 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : Metaphrasis et enarratio
in Epistclam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Basil. 1562.
BuGENHAGEN (Johann), { 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Interpretatio
Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Hagenoae, 1523.
BuiwinceEr (Heinrich), { 1575, Pastor at Ziirich : Commentarii in omnes Epis-
tolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1537 al.

Casetanvs [Tommaso da Vio], ¢ 1534, Cardinal : Epistolae 5. Pauli et aliorum
apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae et juxta sensum literalem
enarratae. 20 Venet. 1531 al.

Catrxtus (Georg), { 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositiones litterales in
Epistolas ad Romanos, ad Corinthios priorem et posteriorem, ad Ga-
latas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonienses

. et ad Titum. 40. Helmstadii, 1664-66.

Cavin [CHAvvin] (Jean), { 1564: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Pauli apos-
toli atque etiam Epistolam ad Ebraeos ; necnon in Epistolas canoni-
cas, 2°, Genevae, 1551 al.

Caretus [CappEt] (Louis), ¢ 1658. See Acts.

Jarpzov (Johann Benedict), { 1803, Prof. Theol. and Greek at Helmstadt :
Stricturae theologicae et criticae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos... .

8°, Helmstad. 1758.

Casstoporus (Magnus Aurelius), + 563, Chancellor of the Ostrogoth empire :
Complexiones in Epistolas apostolorum, in Acta etin Apocalypsim quasi
brevissima explanatione decursas. . . . 8°, Florent. 1721 al.

Catartno (Ambrogio), See Porrrt (Lanzelotto),

Cuatmers (Thomas), D.D., { 1847, Principal of F. C. College, Edinburgh :
Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.

12°, Glasg. 1842 al.

Curysostomus (Joannes), + 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homiliae in Epis-
tolas Pauli. [Opera.]

Cuyrrarus [or Kocuuare] (David), { 1600, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Epistola
Pauli ad Romanos, brevi ac dialectica dispositione partium et gram-
matica declaratione textus . . . explicata. 80 ἢ. p: 1699.

CiauDE (Jean), + 1687, Minister at the Hague: Commentaire 51} ]’Epitre aux
Romains. [Oeuvres. ]

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. ΧΥΪΙ

Conrarrt (Gaspare), ¢ 1542, Cardinal: Scholia in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.]
29, Paris. 1571 al.
ContzEn (Adam), + 1618, Jesuit at Mentz: Commentaria in Epistolam 8. Pauli

ad Romanos. 2°, Colon. 1629.
ConyBEARE (William John, M.A.), Howson (John Saul), D.D.: Life and Epis-
tles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852 al.

Cox (Robert), M.A., P. C. of ‘Stonehouse, Devon: Horae Romanae, or an at-
tempt to elucidate St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by an original

translation, explanatory notes, and new divisions, 8°, Lond. 1824.
Cramer (Johann Andreas), ¢ 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Der Brief Pauli an die
Romer aufs neue tibersetzt und ausgelest. 4° Leip. 1784.

Cretu (Johann), ¢ 1633, Socinian teacher at Cracow ; Commentarius in Epis-
tolam Pauli ad Romanos, ex praelectionibus ejus conscriptus a Jona

Schlichtingio.... 8°, Racov. 1636.
CrucicEr [CREUZINGER] (Kaspar), { 1548, Pastor at Leipzig : Commentarius in
Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Vitemb. 1567.

Date (John) : Analysis of all the Epistles of the New Testament. 12° Oxf. 1652.
Damascrnvs (Joannes), { 754, Monk at S. Saba: Ex universa interpretatione
J. Chrysostomi excerpta compendiaria in Epistolas S, Pauli. [Opera.]
Dewirzscx (Franz), Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Briefan die Rémer aus dem grie-
chischen Urtext in das hebriische uebersetzt und aus Talmud und

Midrasch erliutert. 8°, Leip. 1870.
Dickson (David), { 1662, Prof. Theol. at Glasgow and Edinburgh : Expositio ana-
lytica omnium apostolicarum Epistolarum. .. . 40, Glasg. 1645.
and Analytical Exposition of all the Epistles. 2°, Lond. 1659.
Drersce (August), Prof. in the Univ. at Bonn: Adam und Christus. Rom. V.
12-21 8° Bonn, 1871.

Drev (Louis de), + 1642, Prof. in the Walloon College at Leyden : Animadver-
siones in Epistolam ad Romanos. Accessit spicilegium in reliquas

ejusdem apostoli, ut et catholicas epistolas. 4°, Lugd, Bat. 1646.
Dionysius Carruustanus [Denys DE Rycxenn], { 1471, Carthusian monk: Elu-
cidissima in divi Pauli Epistolas commentaria. 8°, Paris. 1531.

Epwarps (Timothy), M.A., Vicar of Okehampton, Devon: Paraphrase, with

critical annotations on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with

an analytical scheme of the whole. 40. Lond. 1752.

Est [Estrus] (Willem Hessels van), + 1613, R. C. Chancellor of Douay : In
omnes beati Pauli et aliorum apostolorum Epistolas commentarius.

2°, Duaci, 1614-16, al.

Ewap (Georg Heinrich August), Prof. Or. Lang. at Géttingen ; Die Sendschrei-

ben des Apostels Paulus tibersetzt und erklirt. 8°, Gotting. 1857.

Ewsrank (William Withers), M.A., Incumbent at Everton: Commentary on the

Kpistle of Paulto the Romans. . . 8°, Lond. 1850-51.

Faber Stapulensis (Jacobus) [Jacques Lefevre dEtaples], { 1536, resident at
Nerac : Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli... 2°, Paris. 1512 al.

Farrar (F. W.), Canon of Westminster: The Life and Works of St. Paul.
Lond. 1879.
Faye (Antoine de la), { 1616, Prof. at Geneva : Commentarius in Epistolam ad
Romanos. 8°, Genevae, 1608.
Feit (Joun), + 1686, Bishop of Oxford : A Paraphrase and annotations upon all
the Epistles of St. Paul, by Abraham Woodhead, Richard Allestry and
Obadiah Walker. Corrected and improved by Dr. John Fell. [First

issued anonymously in 1675.] 8°, Lond. 1708.
FrrmMe (Charles), + 1617, Principal of Fraserburgh College: Analysis logica in
Epistolam ad Romanos. 12°, Edin. 1651 αἱ.
Frervus [Wiztp] (Johannes), { 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: Exegesis in
Epistolam Paulli ad Romanos, 8°, Paris. 1559.
FrevarDEnt (Francois), ¢ 1612, Franciscan preacher at Paris : Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Romanos. 8°, Paris. 1599.

Fuart (Johann Friedrich von), ¢ 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen

aw x
Ais
i>
ἢ

XVill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

iiber den Brief Pauli an die Rémer, herausgegeben yon Ch. D. F. Hoff-
mann. 8°, Tubing. 1825.

Frorus Lugdunensis, c. 852. See Brpa.
Forsrs (John),-LL. D., Prof. of Oriental Languages at Aberdeen: Analytical
commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought
: by the aid of parallelism. 8°, Edinb. 1868.
FrirzscHk (Karl Friedrich August), { 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Pauli ad
Romanos Epistola. Recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit.
8°, Halis, 1836-43.
Fromonp (Libert), + 1653, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain : Commentarius in om-
nes Epistolas Pauli apostoli et in septem canonicas aliorum aposto-
lorum epistolas. 2°, Lovan. 1663 al,

GaaniKEe (Jean de), { 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Brevissima et
facillima in omnes divi Pauli et canonicas epistolas scholia.
8°, Paris. 1543 al.
GerHarD (Johann), { 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes posthumae in
Epistolam ad Romanos, cum Analectis Jo. Ernesti Gerhardi.
4°, Jenae. 1666 al.
Girrorp (E. H.), Rector of Much Hadham; Introduction, Commentary, and
Critical Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. III. of Bible Com-
mentary, edited by F. C. Cook, Canon of Exeter. Lond. 1881.
GxiéckLEeR (Conrad} : Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Rémer erklirt.
8°, Frankf.-a.-M. 1834.
GoveEt (F.) Prof., in the Theol. Faculty at Neuchatel : Commentaire sur 1 Epitre
aux Romains. 8°, Paris. 1879-80.
{Translated by A. Cusin, Edinburgh, 1881.]
Gomar (Frangois), + 1641, Prof. Theol. at Gréningen: Analysis et explicatio
Epistolarum Pauli ad Romanos, Gal. Philipp. Coloss. Philem. He-
braeos. [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1644.
Grare (Ed.): Ueber Veranlassung und Zweck des Rémerbriefes.
Freiburg, 1881.
GRONEWEGEN (Henricus), + 1692, Minister at Enkhuizen : Vytleginge van den
Zendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4° Gorinchem, 1681.
GUALTHER [WALTHER] (Rudolph), + 1586, Pastor at Zurich: Homiliae in om-
nes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1599.
GuILu1Aup (Claude), + 1550, Theological Lecturer at Autun : Collationes in om-
nes Epistolas Pauli. 4°, Lugd. 1542 al.

Haxpane (Robert), of Airthrey, { 1842 : Exposition of the Epistle to the Ro-
mans, with remarks on the Commentaries of Dr. Macknight, Prof.

Tholuck, and Prof. Moses Stuart. 12°, Lond. 1842 al.
Haymno, + 853, Bishop of Halberstadt [or Remierus] : Commentarius in Epis-
tolas S. Pauli. 20 Paris, 1556. αἱ.
Hemminec [or Hemmincsen] (Niels), + 1600, Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Com-
mentarius in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Lips. 1572 al.

HemseEn (Johann Tychsen), + 1830, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen: Der Apostel
Paulus, sein Leben, Wirken, und siene Schriften herausgegeben von

F. Luecke. 8°, Gotting. 1830.
HenGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. in Leyden: Interpretatio Epistolae
Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1854-9.

Herveus Dotensts, ὁ. 1130, Benedictine. See ANSELMUS.
Hesuustvs (Tilemann), + 1588, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Commentarius in

omnes Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Lips. 1605.
Hipstep (Johann), + 1681, Prof. in Gymnasium at Bremen: Collationes phi-
lologicae in Epistolam ad Romanos. 40, Bremae, 1675.
Hopas (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton : Commentary on the Epis-
tle to the Romans. 80, Philadelphia, 1835 al.

Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die
Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht.
111. Theil. Brief an die Rémer, 8°, Nérdlingen, 1868.
HonstEn (C.) : Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus. Rostock, 1868.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. ἘΠ

Hueco ΡῈ S. Vicrorg, {1141, Monk at Paris : Quaestiones circa Epistolas Pauli.

[Opera. ]
Hyveritus [GERHARD] (Andreas), +1564, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarii
in Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Tiguri, 1583,

Jarno (Georg Friedrich) : Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief
an die Rémer nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erliutert.

8°, Hildesheim, 1858-9.

JoweErr (Benjamin), M.A., Master of Balliol College, Oxford : The Epistles of

St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, with critical notes

and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1855.

JUSTINIANI [GrusTINIANI] (Benedetto), + 1622, 5. J. Prof. Theol. at Rome : Ex-
planationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas [e¢ in omnes catholicas].

2°, Lugd. 1612-21.

KisTEeMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), { 1834, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Miinster : Die

Sendschreiben der Apostel (und die Apocalypse), ttbersetzt und erklart.

8°, Minster, 1822-3.

Kurx (Heinrich), + 1840, R. Ὁ. Prof. Theol. at Miinich : Commentar iiber des

Apostel Pauli Sendschreiben an die Romer. 8°, Mainz, 1830.

Knicut (Robert) : A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle

to the Romans. 8°, Lond. 1854.

KtosrerMann (August), Prof. in the Univ. at Kiel: Korrekturen zur bisherigen

Erklairung des Rémerbriefes, Gotha, 1868.

K6énuner (Wilhelm Heinrich Dorotheus Eduard), c. 1850, Prof. Theol. at Got-
tingen : Commentar zu dem Briefe des Paulus an die Rémer.

8°, Darmst. 1834.

Krenu (August Ludwig Gottlob), + 1855, Prof. Pract. Theol. at Leipzig: Der

Brief an die Romer ausgelegt. 8°, Leip. 1849.

Lanrranc, + 1089, Archbishop of Canterbury : Commentarii in omnes 1). Pauli
Epistolas. [Opera.]

Lariwe (Cornelius ἃ) [VAN DEN STEEN], + 1637, 8. J. Prof. of Sacred Scripture
at Louvain ; Commentaria in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas.

2°, Antwerp. 1614 εἰ al.

Launay (Pierre de), Sieur dela Motte : Paraphrase et exposition sur les Epistres
de 8. Paul. 40. Saumur et Charenton, 1647-50.

Lrevwen (Gerbrand van), + 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: Verhandeling
van den Sendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 40 Amst. 1688-99.

Lewin (Thomas), M.A.: The Life and Epistles of 5. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851.

Limsorcy (Philipp van), + 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com-
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad
Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711.

Livermore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Epistle of Paul to the
Romans, with a commentary and revised translation, and introductory
essays. 12°, Boston, 1855.

Locke (John), + 1704. See Ganarrans.

Lomparvus (Petrus), + 1160, Scholastic: Collectanea in omnes Epistolas D.

Pauli ex. SS. Patribus. 20 Paris. 1535 al.
Lucut (H.): Uber die beiden letzten Kapitel des Rémerbriefes. Eine Kritische
Uutersuchung. 8°, Berlin, 1871.

Macxrnicut (James), D.D., + 1800, Minister at Edinburgh : A new literal trans-
lation . . . of all the apostolical Epistles, with a commentary and

notes, philological, critical, explanatory and practical . . .
40, Edin. 1795 αἱ.
Mater (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar iiber den Brief
Pauli an die Romer. 8°, Freiburg, 1847,
Mancoup (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Der Rémerbrief und die Anfinge
der Rémischen Gemeinde. Eine kritische Untersuchung. 1866.
Also, Der Rémerbrief und seine geschichtliche Voraussetzungen, 1884,
Marburg.

ΧΧ EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

Martyr (Peter) [Vermicr1], + 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg : In Epistolam ad

Romanos commentarii .. . 2°, Basil. 1558, al.
Meurine (H. J. F.): Der Brief Pauli an die Rémer uebersetzt und erklirt.

8°, Stettin, 1859.

ΜΈΓΑΝΟΗΤΗΟΝ (Philipp), + 1560, Reformer : Adnotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad

Romanos, et Corinthios. . . 4°, Basil, 1522. — Commentarii in Ep.
Pauli ad Romanos. 8° Argent. 1540.—Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos
scriptae enarratio... 8°, Vitemb. 1556 al.

MetvittzE (Andrew), + 1622, Principal of St. Mary’s College, St.Andrews : Com-
mentarius indivinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos .. .

8°, Edin. 1849.

Momma (Willem), + 1677, Pastor at Middelburg : Meditationes posthumae in

Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas. 8°. Hag. Com. 1678.

Morison (James), D.D. Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow: An

exposition of the Ninth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 8°,

Kilmarnock, 1849. And A critical exposition of the Third chapter...

8°, Lond. 1866.

Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Prae-

lectiones in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Cum ejusdem versione

Latina, locorumque quorundam N. T. difficiliorum interpretatione.

Ed. J .T. S. Holzapfel. 8°, Lips. 1794.
Muscuuws [or Mevsstin] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: In Epis-
tolam ad Romanos commentarius. 2°, Basil. 1555 al.

Nruisen (Rasmus), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen ; Der Brief Pauli an die Romer

entwickelt ... 8°, Leip. 1849.

Norn, (Alexandre) [Narauis], + 1724, Dominican teacher of Church History
at Paris : Expositio litteralis et moralis in Epistolas D. Pauli.

2°, Paris. 1710.

Oxcumentus, c. 980, Bishop of Tricca ; Commentaria in Acta Apostolorum, in
omnes Pauli Epistolas, in Epistolas catholicas omnes... .

2°, Veronae, 1532 al.

OurraMaRE (Hugues), Minister at Geneva: Commentaire sur ]’Epitre aux

Romains. [I—V. 11.] 8°, Geneve, 1843.
OricEenrs, + 254, Catechete at Alexandria: Fragmenta in Epistolas Pauli
[Opera.
Osorio (Jeronymo), { 1580, Bishop of Sylvas : In Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos
libri quatuor. [Opera.] 2°, Romae, 1592.

Parevus [or WAENGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commen-
tarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 4°. Francof. 1608 al.
Pautus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), { 1851. See Gaxarrans.
Prrz (Thomas Williamson), D.D., Vicar of Luton : Annotations on the apos-
tolical Epistles, designed chiefly for the use of students of the Greek
text. 8°, Lond. 1848-52.
Prxiacius, c. 420, British monk : Commentarii in Epistolas 8. Pauli. [Hierony-
mi Opera. 7
Priniprr (Friedrich Adolph), Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Commentar tber den
Brief an die Romer. 8°, Erlangen and Frankf. 1848-52.
[Translated from the 3d ed. by J. 5. Banks. Edinburgh, 1879.]
Pricquieny (Bernardin) [Brrnarpinus A Prconro], Cistercian monk: Epistolarum
Pauli triplex expositio, cum analysi, paraphrasi et commentariis.
20 Paris. 1703.
Porritt (Lanzelotto) [Amprocio CaTartno], + 1553, Archbishop of Conza : Com-
mentarius in omnes divi Pauli et alias septem canonicas Epistolas.
2°, Romae, 1546 al.
Posseitt (August), c. 1715, Pastor at Zittau: Richtige Erklirung der EHpistel
Pauli an die Romer... 40. Zittau, 1696,
Prmasivus, c. 550, Bishop of Adrumetum : Commentaria in Epistolas Pauli.
[Bibl. Max. Patrum, X.]

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, XX1

Przrezcov or PrzypKowsky (Samuel), + 1670, Socinian teacher: Cogitationes
sacrae ad omnes Epistolas apostolicas.

: 2°, Eleutheropoli [Amstel.], 1692.

Purpvue (Edward), M.A. : A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a
revised translation. 8°, Dubl. 1855.

Pyuz (Thomas), D.D., + 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A Paraphrase, with some notes
on the Acts of the Apostles and on all the Epistles of the New Tes-
tament. 8°, Lond. 1725 al.

QuistorP (Johann), + 1648, Superintendent at Rostock : Commentarius in omnes
Epistolas Paulinas. 4°, Rostoch, 1652.

Rasanus Maurus, { 856, Archbishop of Mentz: Enarrationum in Epistolas B.
Pauli libri triginta. [Opera.]
Rampacn (Johann Jakob), + 1735, Superintendent in Giessen: Ausfiihrliche
und griindliche Erklirung der Epistel Pauli an die Romer.
4°, Bremae, 1738.
Introductio historico-theologica in Ep. P. ad Romanos, cum Martini
Lutheri Praefatione variis observationibus exegeticis illustrata.
8°, Halae, 1727.
RetcHe (Johann Georg), Prof. Theol. in Gottingen: Versuch einer ausfiihr-
lichen Erklirung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer, mit historischen
Einleitungen und exegetisch-dogmatischen Excursen.
8°, Gotting. 1833-4.
Commentarius criticus in Novum Testamentum, quo loca graviora et
difficiliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur.
Tom. 1.-- Π|. Epistolas Paulinas et catholicas continentes.
40 et 8°. Gétting. 1853-62.
REITHMAYR (Franz Xaver), + 1871, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Munich : Commentar
zum Briefe an die Romer. 8°, Regensburg, 1845.
Remicius (of Auxerre), +899. See Haymo.
Roxuock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh : Analysis
dialectica in Pauli apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos...
80 Edin. 1594 al.
Rorue (Richard), Prof. Theol. in Heidelberg: Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung

der Paulinischen Stelle Romer V. 12-21. 8°, Wittenberg, 1836.
Riicxerr (Leopold Immanuel), c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar tiber
den Brief an die Romer. 8°, Leip, 1831.

Sapatrer (A.): L’Apotre Paul. Esquisse d’une histoire de sa pensée.

: Paris, 1881.

SADOLETO (Jacopo), + 1547, Cardinal : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos.

8°, Venet. 1536 al.

SatmEron (Alphonso), + 1585, Jesuit: Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli.
(Opera. ]

Sanpay (William), Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham: The Epistle to the Ro-
mans. In Vol. Il. of New Testament Commentary for English Read-
ers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.

‘ London.

Scuarr (Philip), Prof. in Union Theol. Sem. New York: A Popular Commen-
tory on the New Testament by English and American Scholars. Vol. II,
The Epistle to the Romans, By Profs. Philip Schaff and Matthew B.
Riddle. New York, 1882.

ScHxiicHtine (Jonas), + 1664. See Cretn (Johann).

Scumrp (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Commentarii in Epis-
tolas Pauli ad Romanos, Galatas et Colossenses, una cum paraphrasi
epistolae prioris ad Corinthios, utriusque ad Thessalonicenses, prioris
ad Timotheum, epistolae ad Philemonem et cantici Mariae. [Pre-
viously issued separately. ] 49, Hamb. 1704.

Scumip (Christian Friedrich), + 1778, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Annotationes
in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, philologicae, theologicae et criticae.

8°, Lips. 1777.

Xxli EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

Scuott (Theodor): Der Rémerbrief seinem Endzweck und seinem Gedanken-

gang nach ausgelegt. 8°, Erlangen, 1858.
SepuLius Scotus Hiberniensis, c. 800?: In omnes 8. Pauli epistolas collec-
taneum. 2°, Basil. 1528,

SemueR (Johann Salomon), + 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Paraphrasis Epistolae

Pauli ad Romanos cum notis et translatione vetusta. 8°, Halis, 1769.

SreLNEcceR (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. in Leipzig: In omnes Epistolas

Pauli apostoli commentarius plenissimus. 2°, Lips. 1599.

Suepp (William G. T.), Prof. Theol. in New York: A Critical and Doctrinal
Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.

New York, 1879.

SHuTTLEWorRTH (Philip Nicholas), D.D., Bishop of Chichester: A Paraphrastic

translation of the apostolical Epistles, with notes. 8°, Oxf. 1829 al.

SiapE (James), + 1860, Rector of West Kirby : Annotations on the Epistles ;

being a continuation of Mr. Elsley’s Annotations. 8°, Lond. 1824 al.

Soro (Domingo de), { 1560, Prof. Theol. at Salamanca : Commentarius in Epis-

tolam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Antverp. 1550,
SpENER (Philipp Jakob), + 1705, Provost at Berlin: Auslegung des Briefes an
die Rémer aufs neue herausg. von H. Schott. 8°, Leip. 1859 al.
STEINHOFER (Friedrich Christoph), + 1761 : Erklarung des Epistel Pauli an die
Romer ; mit einem Vorwort von J. T. Beck. 8°, Tiibing. 1851.
Srencet (Liborius), +1835, R.C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar tiber
den Brief des Paulus andie Rémer.. . 8°, Freiburg, 1836.

SrEenEeRsEN (Stener Johannes), + 1835, Prof. of Church History at Christiania :
Epistolae Paulinae perpetuo commentario illustratae. Vol. I. Ep. ad

Rom. Voll, 11. Ill. Epp. ad Corinth. IV. Ep. ad Galat.
8°, Christiania, 1829-34.
Sruart (Moses), + 1852, Prof. of Sacred Literature at Andover : A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, with a translation and various excur-
SUSse60 8°, Andover, 1832 al.

Taytor (John), D.D., + 1761, Minister at Norwich : A Paraphrase with notes on
the Epistle to the Romans: to which is prefixed a Key to the apos-
tolic writings. 49, Lond. 1746 al.

Trrrot (Charles Hughes), D.D., Bishop, Edinburgh : The Epistle to the
Romans, with an introduction, paraphrase and notes. 8°, Lond. 1828.

Turoporetvs, { ὁ. 458, Bishop of Cyrus : Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epis-
tolas. [Opera, et. ] 2°, Lond. 1636. ᾿

Turoporus, + 429, Bishop of Mopsuestia: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli.
[Fragments in the Catenae, collected by Fritzsche : Theodori Mops.
Commentaria in N. T. 1847. From Galatians to Philemon, in a Latin
translation, incorporated in Rabanus Maurus. ]

THeopHyLactus, 6. 1070, archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: in Ὁ. Pauli Epis-
tolas commentarius Graece et Latine cura A. Lindselli.. .

2°, Lond. 16386 al.

Tuouuck (Friedrich August Gottreu), Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des
Briefes Pauli an die Rémer, nebst fortlaufenden Ausziigen aus den
exegetischen Schriften der Kirchenviter und Reformatoren. 8°, Berl.
1824 al.—Translated by the Rey. Robert Menzies, D.D.

8°, Edin. 1842.

Tr (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : De Sendbrieven van Paullus

aan de Romeinen en Filippensen, ontleedt, verklaardt en betoogt.
4°, Haarlem, 1721.

Commentarius in quatuor Pauli Epistolas, nempe priorem ad Corin-
thios, Ephesios, Philippenses, ac Colossenses, 49, Amstel. 1726.

TIrELMANN (Franz), 1553, Provincial of Capuchins at Rome: Elucidatio in
omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 8°, Antwerp, 1532 al.

ToLEetus [Francisco DE ToLEpo], + 1596, 8. J. Cardinal: Commentarius et an-
notationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 40, Romae, 1602 al.

Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Biblical Interpretation at
New York: The Epistle to the Romans, in Greek and English. With
an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1853,

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Xxill

Turretini (Jean-Alphonse), + 1737, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: In Pauli ad
Romanos Epistolae capita priora xi, praelectiones criticae, theologicae
et concinnatoriae. 4°, Lausannae, 1741.

Umeretrt (Friedrich Wilhelm Karl), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Der
Brief an die Rémer, auf dem Grunde des Alten Testaments ausgelegt.
8°, Gotha, 1856.

VareEn (August), + 1684, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Paulus evangelista Roma-

norum succincta divinissimae . . . Epistolae ad Romanos analysi et

exegesi repraesentatus. 8°, Hamb. 1696.

VauGHAN (Charles John), D.D., Master of the Temple : St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans, with notes. 8°, Camb. 1857.—Third edition, enlarged.

8°, Lond. and Camb. 1870.

Virrinca (Kempe), + 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker; Verklaringe over de agt

eerste capittelen van de Brief Paulli aan de Romeinen. Ἢ

40. Franek. 1729.

ΟΣ ΚΑ (Gustav) : Die neutestamenlichen Briefe, geschichtlich im Zusammen-

hang erklirt. Band I. Paulus Rémerbrief, Die ilteste Text deutsch

und im Zusammenhang erklirt. Mit dem Wortabdruck der Vatican-

ischen Urkunde. Ziirich, 1875.

Vorst (Koonrad), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in omnes

Epistolas apostolicas, exceptis secunda ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad

Philemonem et ad Ebraeos. 49, Amstel. et Harder. 1631.

Watrorp (William), 1 1850, Pastor at Uxbridge: Curae Romanae : notes on the
Epistle to the Romans. 12°, Lond. 1846.
Werncart (Johann Friedrich), Pastor at Grossfahnern, Gotha : Commentarius
perpetuus in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos. [£#tIn decem Apostoli
Pauli epistolas, quas vulgo dicunt epistolas minores.] 8°. Gothae, 1816.
Werynicu (Georg), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarii in Epistolas

Pauli. 4°, Lips. 1620.
Wetter (Jakob), + 1664, Chief Chaplain at Dresden : Adnotationes in Episto-
lam Pauli ad Romanos. . . collectae opera Jo. Schindleri.

4°, Brunsvigae, 1654.
Wreseter (Karl): Der Abschnitt des Rémerbriefs vii. 7-25, exegetisch und

biblisch-theologisch erklirt. Greifswald, 1875.
Witter (Andrew), + 1621, Prebendary of Ely : Hexapla, that is, a sixfold com-
mentarie upon the most divine Epistle . . . to the Romanes.

2°, Lond, 1620.

Witson (Thomas), c. 1620, Minister at Canterbury : A Commentary on the

most divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 4°, Lond. 1614 al.

Wryzer (Julius Friedrich), + 1845, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Adnotationes ad

loca quaedam Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 40, Lips. 1835.

Wrrticu (Christoph), + 1687, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Investigatio Epistolae ad

Romanos . . . una cum paraphrasi, 49, Lugd. Bat. 1685.
WoopHEAp (Abraham). See Frxu (John).

ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). +1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Paraphrastische
Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer. 8°, Gotting. 1786.

ABBREVIATIONS.

al., etal. = and others ; and other passages ; and other editions.

ad. or in loc., refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the
particular passage.

ef. = compare.

comp. = compare, ‘‘Comp. on Matt. iii. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com-
mentary on the passage. So also ‘‘See on Matt. 111. 5.”

codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the

ι usual letters, the Sinaitic by &.

min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are
individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals,
as 33, 89.

Rec. or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

lc. = loco citato or laudato.

ver. = verse, vv. = verses.

f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16f. means verses 16 and 17. vy. 16 ff. means
verses 16 and two or more following.

vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the
usual abridged forms. Εἰς. Syr. = Peshito Syriac ; Syr. p. = Philox-
enian Syriac.

Pp. pp. = page, pages.

.g. = exempli gratia.

c. = scilicet. ;

N. T. =New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament.

A. Υ. = The Authorized English Version of the New Testament.

R. V. = The Revised English Version of the New Testament.

.R. V. = The American Appendix to the Revised English Version of the N. T.

T.A. = καὶ τὰ λοιπά. ;

he colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which

a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transi-
tion to the statement of another’s opinions.

. . . . indicates that words are omitted.

The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their
usual English names and abbreviations. Eccles. = Ecclesiasticus. 3
Esd., 4 Esd. (or Esr.) = the books usually termed 1st and 2d Esdras.

The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter,
etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally
used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H.
Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics.
Roman numerals in small capitals are used to denote beoks or other
internal divisions (as Thuc. iv) ; Roman numerals in large capitals
denote volumes (as Kiihner, IT.). 2

The references to Winer’s and Buttmann’s N. T. Grammars, given in brackets
thus [E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Prof. Thayer's
English translations of these works.

THE

EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. Skercn or THE APosTLn’s LIFE.

: On AUL, who received this Roman name, according to Jerome,

Catal. 5—and from Acts xiii. 9, this view seems the most
probable —en occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus
the Roman Proconsul of Cyprus, but was at his circumcision
named TINY? was the son of Jewish parents belonging to the
tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5), and was born at Tarsus ®* (Acts ix.
11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3), ἃ πόλις μεγάλη καὶ εὐδαίμων (Xen. Anab. i. 2, 23) of ancient
renown, founded according to the legend by Perseus, in Cilicia. The year
of his birth is quite uncertain (A.p. 10-15 2) ; but it is certain that he was
of Pharisaic descent (see on Acts xxiii. 6), and that his father was a Roman
citizen (see en Acts xvi. 37). He therefore possessed by birth this right of
citizenship, which subsequently had so important a bearing on his labours
and his fate (Acts xxii. 27 f.). Of his first youthful training in his native
city, where arts and sciences flourished (Strabo, xiv. 5, 18, p. 673), we
know nothing ; but it was probably conducted by his Pharisaic father in
entire accordance with Pharisaic principles (Phil. iii. 5 ; Gal. i. 14), so that
the boy was prepared for ἃ Pharisaic rabbinical school at Jerusalem. While
yet in early youth (Acts xxii. 3, xxvi. 4, comp. vil. 58 ; Gal. i. 14 ; Tholuck,

overeame Elymas as the little David over-
came Goliath.

1 See the particulars on Acts xiii. 9.
2 Since beth names were generally cur-

rent, every attempt to explain their mean-
ing in reference to ovr Paul is utterly
arbitrary—from that of Augustine, accord-
ing to whom he was called Saw as persecutor
(as Saul persecuted David), and Paulus as
praedicator (namely, as the minimus apos-
tolorum, 1 Cor. xy. 9), down to Umbreit’s
play on the word “}5 (the made one,
created anew) in the Stud. u. Krit.
1852, p. 377 f., and Lange’s fancy that the
Apostle was called the Jittle, because he

3 Not at Gischala in Galilee, according to
the statement of Jerome, de Vir. ill. 5
(comp. also what he says on Philem. 23),
which cannot be taken into consideration
after the Apostle’s own testimony (see
especially Acts xxii. 3), unless with Krenkel
(Paulus ad. Ap. d. Heiden, 1869, p. 215) we
distrust the accounts of the Book of Acts
even in such a point lying beyond the scope
of its dogmatic tendency.

2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 364 #.; also in his Vermischte Schr. I. p. 274
ff.) he was transferred to Jerusalem, where he had perhaps even then rela-
tives (Acts xxiii. 16), though there is no evidence that the entire family
migrated thither (Hwald). He entered a training-school of Pharisaic theol-
ogy, and became a rabbinic pupil of the universally honoured (Acts ν. 34)
Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 8), who, notwithstanding his strict orthodoxy (Light-
foot, ad Matt. p. 33), shows himself (Acts v. 34 ff.) a man of wise modera-
tion of judgment.’ In accordance with a custom, which was rendered nec-
essary by the absence of any regular payment of the Rabbins and was very
salutary for their independence (see on Mark vi. 3, and Delitzsch, Handwer-
kerleben zur Zeit Jesu,* 1868, V.), the youthful Saul combined with his rab-
binical culture the learning of a trade—tentmaking (Acts xviii. 3)—to
which he subsequently, even when an apostle, applied himself in a way
highly honourable and remarkably conducive to the blessing of his official
labours, and for that reason he felt a just satisfaction in it (Acts xviii. 3, xx.
34; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 7 ff. ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 6, xii. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 8, xii.
13). At the feet of Gamaliel he of course received an instruction which, as to
form and matter, was purely rabbinic ; and hence his epistles exhibit, in
the mode in which they unfold their teaching, a more or less distinct rab-
binico-didactic impress. But it was natural also that his susceptible and
active mind should not remain unaffected by Hellenic culture, when he
came into contact with it; and how could he escape such contact in Jerusa-
lem, whither Hellenists flocked from all quarters under heaven? This
serves to explain a dilettante * acquaintance on his part with Greek literary
works, which may certainly be recognized in Acts xvii. 28, if not also in
1 Cor. xv. 33 (Tit. i. 12); and which, perhaps already begun in Tarsus, may
have been furthered, without its being sought, by his subsequent relations of
intercourse with Greeks of all countries and of all ranks. It is impossible to
determine how much or how little of the virtues of his character, and of the
acuteness, subtlety, and depth of lofty intellect which he displayed as apos-
tle, he owed to the influence of Gamaliel ; for his conversion had as its re-
sult so entire a change in his nature, that we cannot distinguish—and we
should not attempt to distinguish—what elements of it may have grown out
of the training of his youth, or to what extent they have done so. We can
only recognize this much in general, that Saul, with excellent natural gifts,

1 See traits of the mild liberality of senti-
ment, which marked this grandson of the
celebrated Hillel, quoted from the Rabbins
in Tholuck, /.c. p. 378. The fact that never-
theless the youthful Saul developed into a
zealot cannot warrant any doubt, in opposi-
tion to Acts viii. 34 ff.,as to his having been
Gamaliel’s pupil (such as Hausrath ex-
presses, neut. Zeitqgesch. ΤΙ. p. 419 ff.).

2 The exaggerations of the older writers
(see e.g. Schramm, de sTUPENDA eruditione
Pauli, Herborn. 1710) are pure inventions of
fancy. So too is Schrader’s opinion, that
Paul had by Greek culture prepared him-

self to be a Jewish missionary, a prose-
lytizer. It cannot even be proved that he
formed his diction on the model of particu-
lar authors, such as Demosthenes (K6ster
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 305 ff.). The
comparisons instituted with a view to es-
tablish this point are too weak and general.
How many similar parallels might be col-
lected, e.g. from Plato, and even from the
tragedians ! On the whole the general re-
mark of Jerome, at Gal. iv. 24, is very ap-
propriate: ‘* P. scisse, licet non ad perfectum,
literas saeculares.””
* Translation pub. by Funk & Wagnalls.

SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 3

with the power of an acute intellect, lively feelings, and strong will, was,
under the guidance of his teacher, not merely equipped with Jewish theo-
logical knowledge and dialectic art, but had his mind also directed with
lofty national enthusiasm towards divine things ; and that, however deeply
he felt sin to be the sting of death (Rom. vii. 7 ff.), he was kept free (Phil.
iii. 6) from the hypocritical depravity which was at that time prevalent
among Pharisees of the ordinary type (Schrader, II. p. 23 ff.; comp. also
Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 265). Nevertheless it is also certain that the mod-
eration and mildness of the teacher did not communicate themselves to the
character of the disciple, who, on the contrary, imbibed in a high degree
that prevailing rigour of Pharisaism, the spirit of which no Gamaliel could
by his individual practical wisdom exorcise. He became a distinguished
zealot for the honour of Jehovah and the law (Acts xxii. 3), as well as for
Pharisaic principles (Gal. i. 14), and displayed all the recklessness and vio-
lence which are wont to appear, when fiery youthful spirits concentrate all
their energies on the pursuit of an idea embraced with thorough enthusiasm.
His zeal was fed with abundant fuel and more and more violently inflamed,
when the young Christian party growing up in Jerusalem became an object
of hostility as dangerously antagonistic to the theocracy and legal orthodoxy
(comp. Acts vi. 13, 14), and at length formal persecution broke out with the
stoning of Stephen. Even on that occasion Saul, although still in a very
subordinate capacity, as merely a youth in attendance,’ took a willing and
active part (Acts vill. 1, xxii. 20) ; but soon afterwards he came forward on
his own account as a persecutor of the Christians, and, becoming far and
wide a terror to the churches of Judaea (Gal. i. 22 f.), he raged against the
Christians with a violence so resolute and persistent (Acts xxii. 3 f., XXxvi.
10 ff.), that his conduct at this time caused him ever afterwards the deepest
humiliation and remorse (1 Cor. xv. 8, 9; Gal. i. 18 ; Eph. ni. 8; Phil. 11].
6; comp. 1 Tim. i. 13). Yet precisely such a character as Saul—who, full
of a keen but for the time misdirected love of truth and piety, devoted with-
out selfish calculation his whole energies to the idea which he had once em-
braced as his highest and holiest concernment—was, in the purpose of God,
to become the chief instrument for the proclamation and extension of the
divine work, of which he was still for the moment the destructive ad-
versary. A transformation so extraordinary required extraordinary means.
Accordingly when Saul, invested with full powers by the Sanhedrin (Acts
ix. 1, xxvi. 9), was carrying his zealous labours beyond the bounds of Pales-
tine, there took place near Damascus (35 A.D.) that wonderful appearance to
him of the exalted Jesus in heavenly glory (see on Acts ix. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 1,
xv. 8) which arrested him (Phil. 111. 12), and produced no less a result than
that Saul—thereby divinely called, and subsequently favoured with an in-
ward divine revelation of the Son of God? (see on Gal. i. 15 f.)—gradually

1Not as a married man or already a sent the Gospel of Paul as having originated
widower, of about thirty years of age, from the intrinsic action of his own mind,
(Ewald, Hausrath); comp. on Acts vii. 58. and the event at Damascus as a visionary
2The attempts of the Tiibingen school picture drawn from his own spirit, are
(especially of Baur and Holsten) to repre- noticed and refuted at Acts ix., and by

‘

4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

became, under the further guidance of the divine Spirit and in the school of
his own experiences so full of trial, the Apostle, who by the most extensive
and most successful proclamation of the Gospel, especially among the Gen-
tiles, and by his triumphant liberation of that Gospel from the fetters of
Mosaism on the one hand and from the disturbing influences of the current
theosophic speculations on the other, did more than all the other apostles—
he, the Thirteenth, more than the Twelve, who had been called in the first
instance for the δωδεκαφύλον of Israel (Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 10). His con-
version was completed through Ananias, who was directed to him by means
of an appearance of Christ (Acts ix. 10 ff.); and, having been baptized, he
at once after a few days, in the resolute consciousness of his spiritual life
transformed with a view to his apostolic vocation (Gal. i. 16), preached in
the synagogues of Damascus Jesus’ as being the Son of God (Acts x. 19 f.).
For all half-heartedness was foreign to him ; now too he was, whatever he
was, thoroughly, and this energetic: unity of his profound nature was now
sanctified throughout by the living spirit of Christ. His apostolic labours at
Damascus, the birthplace of his regenerate life, lasted three years, inter-
rupted however by a journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17), the object of which most
probably was to make merely a preliminary and brief trial of his ministry in
a foreign field.?

Persecution on the part of the Jews—which was subsequently so often,
according to the Divine counsel, the salutary means of extending the sphere

Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1870, 1.
Compare generally Dorner, Gesch. αἱ. prot.
Theol. p. 829 ff.

1 The chief facts in the life of Jesus could
not but have been already known to him
in a general way, whilst he was actively
opposing the Christians at Jerusalem; but
now, for the first time, there dawned upon
him the saving knowledge of these facts and
of their ἐγ, and his constant intercourse
with believers henceforth deepened more
and more this saving knowledge. ‘Thus,
following the living historical tradition
within the circle of Christianity under the
influence of the Christ revealed in him, he
became the most important witness for the
history of Jesus apart from’ the Gospels.
Comp. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, I. Ὁ. 36 ff.; also
Hiausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. 11. p. 457. But
that he had seen Christ Himself, cannot be
inferred from 2 Cor. vy. 16; see on that
passage.

2 Schrader, Kéllner, Kohler (Adfassungen
α΄. epistol. Schr. p.43f.), Riickert, and Schott
on Gal. 1.6., Holsten, D6éllinger, Krenkel,
and others, think that Paul withdrew im-
mediately after his conversion to a neigh-
bouring desert of Arabia, in order to pre-
pare himself in retirement for his calling.
Compare also Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. I.
p. 455. This view is decidedly at variance

with Acts ix. 19, 20, where the immediate
public teaching at Damascus, a few days
after the conversion, receives very studious
prominence. But we should only have to
assume such an inconsistency with the pas-
sage in Acts, in the event of that assumed
object of the Arabian journey being eme-
getically deducible from the Apostle’s own
words in Gal. i. 17, which, however, is by no
means the case. Luke, it is true, makes no
mention at all of the Arabian journey ; but
for that very reason it is highly improbable
that it had as its object asilent preparation
for his official work. For in that case the
analogous instances of other famous teach-
ers who had prepared themselves in the
desert for their future calling (Ex. xxiv. 18,
xxxiv. 28; Deut, ix. 9; 1 Kings xix. 8), and
the example of John the Baptist, and even
of Christ Himself, would have made the
fact seem too important either to have re-
mained wholly unknown to Luke, or to
have been passed over without notice in
his history ; although Hilgenfeld and Zeller
suppose him to have omitted it intentionally.
On the other hand, we cannot suppose that
the sojourn in Arabia extended over the
whole, or nearly the whole of the three
years (Eichhorn, Hemsen, Anger, Ewald,
Laurent, and olderexpositors). See gener-
ally on Gal. i. 17.

SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 5

of the Apostle’s labours—compels him to escape from Damascus (Acts ix.
19-26 ; 2 Cor. xi. 32 f.); and he betakes himself to the mother-church of
the faith on account of which he has suffered persecution in a foreign land,
proceeding to Jerusalem (A.D. 38), in order to make the personal acquaint-
ance of Peter (Gal. i. 18). At first regarded by the believers there with dis-
trust, he was, through the loving intervention of Barnabas (Acts ix. 27 f.),
admitted into the relation of a colleague to the Apostles, of whom, however,
only Peter and James the brother of the Lord were present (Gal. i. 19).
His first apostolic working at Jerusalem was not to last more than fifteen
days (Gal. i. 18); already had the Lord by an appearance in the temple
(Acts xxii. 17 ff.) directed him to depart to the Gentiles ; already were the
Hellenists resident in the city seeking his life; and he therefore withdrew
through Syria to his native place (Acts ix. 30; Gal. i. 20). Here he seems to
have lived and worked wholly in quiet retirement, till at length Barnabas,
who had appreciated the greatness and importance of the extraordinary man,
went from Antioch, where just at that time Gentile Christianity had estab-
lished its first church, to seek him out at Tarsus, and brought him thence
to the capital of Syria ; where both devoted themselves for a whole year
(A.D. 43) without interruption to the preaching of the Gospel (Acts xi. 25,
26). We know not whether it was during this period (see Anger, temp. rat.
p. 104 ff.), or during his sojourn in Cilicia (see Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 440,
ed. 3), that the Apostle became the subject of that spiritual ecstasy and
revelation which, even after the lapse of fourteen years, continued to be re-
garded by him as so extremely remarkable (2 Cor. xii. 2-4).

But the great famine was now approaching, which, foretold at Antioch
by the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem, threatened destruction to the
churches of Judaea. On this account the brethren at Antioch, quite in the
spirit of their new brotherly love, resolved to forward pecuniary aid to Ju-
daea ; and entrusted its transmission to Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 27-80).
After the execution of this commission (A.p. 44), in carrying out which
however Saul at least cannot have gone all the way to Jerusalem (see on
Gal. ii. 1), the two men were formally and solemnly consecrated by the
church at Antioch as apostles to the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 1-3); and Saul now
undertook—at first with, but afterwards without, Barnabas—his missionary
journeys so fruitful in results. In the course of these journeys he was wont,
where there were Jews, to attempt the fulfilment of his office in the first in-
stance among them, in accordance with what he knew to be the divine
order (Rom. i. 16, xv. 8 ff.), and with his own deep love towards his nation
(Rom. ix. 1 ff.); but when, as was usually the case, he was rejected by the
Jews, he displayed the light of Christ before the Gentiles. And in all va-
riety of circumstances he exhibited a vigour and versatility of intellect, an
acuteness and depth, clearness and consistency, of thought, a purity and
steadfastness of purpose, an ardour of disposition, an enthusiasm of effort,
a wisdom of conduct, a firmness and delicacy of practical tact, a strength
and freedom of faith, a fervour and skill of eloquence, a heroic courage
amidst dangers, a love, self-denial, patience, and humility, and along with
all this a lofty power of gifted genius, which secure for the Saul whom

0 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Christ made His chosen instrument the reverence and admiration of all
time.’

In accordance with the narrative of Acts, three? missionary journeys of
the Apostle may be distinguished; and in the description of these we may
insert the remaining known facts of his history.

(1.) On his consecration as Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul went along with
Barnabas the Cyprian, and -with Mark accompanying them as apostolic ser-
vant, first of all to the neighbouring Cyprus; where, after his advance from
Salamis to Paphos, his work was crowned by a double success—the humilia-
tion of the goetes Elymas, and the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Pau-
lus (Acts xiii. 6-12). Then Pamphylia, where Mark parted from the apos-
tles (xiii. 13), Pisidia and Lycaonia became in turn fields of his activity, in
which, together with Barnabas, he founded churches and organized them
by the appointment of presbyters (xiv. 23). At one time receiving divine
honours on account of a miracle (xiv. 11 ff.), at another persecuted and
stoned (xiii. 50, xiv. 5, 19), he, after coming down from Perga to Attalia,
returned to the mother-church at Antioch.

While Paul and Barnabas were here enjoying a quiet sojourn of some du-
ration among the brethren (Acts xiv. 28), there came down from Judaea
Pharisaic Christians jealous for the law, who required the Gentile converts
to submit to circumcision as a condition of Messianic salvation (Acts xv. 1;
Gal. ii. 4). It was natural that this demand should encounter a decided
opponent in the highly enlightened and liberal-minded Paul, whose lively
assurance of the truth, resting on revelation and upheld by his own experi-
ence, could tolerate no other condition of salvation than faith in Christ;
and in consequence both he and the like-minded Barnabas became entangled
in no small controversy (Acts xv. 2). The dispute involved the fundament-
al essence and independent standing of Christianity and the whole freedom
of a Christian man, and was therefore of such importance that the church
at Antioch, with a view to its settlement, deputed their most influential
men, Paul, who also received a revelation for this purpose (Gal. ii. 2), and
Barnabas along with some others (Paul also took Titus with him, Gal. ii. 1),
to proceed to Jerusalem (fourteen years after the Apostle’s first journey
thither, A.p, 52), and there discuss with the apostles and elders the points

1CGomp. Holsten, 1.56. Hvang. d. Paul. u.
Petr. Ὁ. 88 ff.; Luthardt, d. Ap. Pail. e. Le-
bensbild, 1869; Krenkel, Paul. ἃ. Ap. d. Hei-
den, 1869; Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. TI.
1872; Grau, Hntwickelungsgesch. αἱ. neutest.
Schriftth. 1871, Il. p. 10f.; also Sabatier,
Uapotre Paul, esquisse Mune histoire de sa
pensée, Strasb. 1870. Still the history of the
spiritual development of the Apostle can-
not be so definitely and sharply divided in-
to periods as Sabatier has tried todo. See,
against this, the appropriate remarks of
Gess, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 159 ff. The
motive power and unity of all his working
lay in his inward fellowship with Christ,

with His death and resurrection—in the
subjective living and moving in Christ, and
of Christ in him. Comp. Grau. /.c. p. 15 ff.
2 The supposition that there were other
chief journeys, which, it is alleged, are left
unnoticed in the Acts (Schrader), is quite
incompatible with the course of the history
as there. given. He must, however, have
made many subordinate journeys, for the
Book of Acts is far from giving a complete
account of his labours, as is clearly shown
by various intimations in the Epistles. For
example, how many journeys and events
not noticed in the Acts must be assumed in
connection with 2 Cor. xi. 14 ff. ?

~

SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. γ

in dispute. And how happy was the result of this so-called Apostolic Coun-
cil! Paul laid the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles before the
church, and the apostles in particular, with the best effect (Gal. ii. 2, 6);
and, as to the point of circumcision, not even his apostolic associate Titus, a
Gentile, was subjected to the circumcision demanded by members of the
church who were zealous for the law. With unyielding firmness Paul con-
tended for the truth of the Gospel. The apostles who were present—James
the brother of the Lord, Peter and John—approved of his preaching among,
and formally recognized him as Apostle to, the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 1-10); and
he and Barnabas, accompanied by the delegates of the church at Jerusalem,
Judas Barsabas and Silas, returned to Antioch bearers of a decree (Acts xv.
28-30) favourable to Christian freedom from the law, and important as a
provisional measure for the further growth of the church (Acts xvi. 4 f.),
though not coming up to that complete freedom of the Gospel which Paul
felt himself bound to claim, and for this reason, as well as in virtue of his
consciousness of independence as Apostle to the Gentiles, not urged by him
in his Epistles. Here they prosecuted afresh their preaching of Christ,
though not always without disturbance on the part of Jewish Christians, so
that Paul was compelled in the interest of Christian freedom openly to op-
pose and to admonish even Peter, who had been carried away into dissimu-
lation, especially seeing that the other Jewish Christians, and even Barna-
bas, had allowed themselves to be tainted by that dissimulation (Gal. ii. 11
ff.).. Paul had nevertheless the welfare of his foreign converts too much at
heart to permit his wishing to prolong his stay in Antioch (Acts xv. 36).
He proposed to Barnabas a journey in which they should visit those con-
verts, but fell into a dispute with him in consequence of the latter desiring
to take Mark (Acts xv. 37-39)—a dispute which had the beneficial conse-
quence for the church, that the two men, each of whom was qualified to fill
a distinct field of labour, parted from one another and never again worked
in conjunction.

(2.) Paul, accompanied by Silas, entered on a second missionary journey
(A.D. 52). He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the Christian
life of the churches (Acts xv. 41) ; and then through Lycaonia, where at
Lystra (see on Acts xvi. 1) he associated with himself Timothy, whom he
circumcised—apart however from any connection with the controversy as to
the necessity of circumcision (see on Acts xvi. 3)—with a view to prevent
his ministry from causing offence among the Jews. He also traversed Phry-
gia and Galatia (Acts xvi. 6), in the latter of which he was compelled by
bodily weakness to make a stay, and so took occasion to plant the churches
there (Gal. iv. 135). When he arrived at Tvoas, he received in a vision by
night a call from Christ to go to Macedonia (xvi. 8 ff.). In obedience to
this call he stepped for the first time on the soil of Europe, and caused
Christianity to take permanent root in every place to which he carried his
ministry. For in Macedonia he laid the foundation of the churches at Phi-
lippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts xvi. 12 ff., xvii. 1 ff., 10 4f.); and then,
driven away by repeated persecutions (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 1 f., i. 6)—but
leaving Silas and Timothy behind in Beroea (Acts xvii. 14)—he brought to

8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Christ His first-fruits even in Athens, where he was treated by the philoso-
phers partly with contempt and partly with ridicule (Acts xvii. 16 ff.).
But in that city, whence he despatched Timothy, who had in the mean-
while again rejoined him, to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 1 ff.), he was unable
to found a church. The longer and more productive was his labour in
Corinth, whither he betook himself on leaving Athens (Acts xviii. 1 ff.).
There, where Silas and Timothy soon joined him, he founded the church
which Apollos afterwards watered (1 Cor. 111. 6, 10, iv. 15, ix. 1); and for
more than a year and a half (Acts xviii. 11, 18; a.p. 53 and 54)—during
which period he received support from Macedonia (2 Cor. xi. 9), as he had
previously on several occasions from the Philippians (Phil. iv. 15 f.)—over-
came the wisdom of the world by the preaching of the Crucified One (1 Cor.
ii. 1 ff.). The relation here formed with his fellow-craftsman Aquila (Acts
xviii.1 ff.), who as a Roman emigrant was sojourning with his wife Priscilla
in Corinth, could not fail to exercise essential influence on the Christian
church at Rome (Rom. xvi. 3). In Corinth he wrote also at this time the
first of his doctrinal Epistles preserved to us—those to the Thessalonians.
Corinth was the terminus of his second missionary journey. From Corinth
he started on his return, not however taking a direct course, but first mak-
ing by way of “Zphesus (whither he brought Aquila and Priscilla with him)
a journey to Jerusalem to attend a festival (Acts xvili. 18-22; a.p. 55),
whence, without prolonging his stay, he returned to the bosom of the
Syrian mother-church. But he did not remain there long (Acts xviii. 23);
his apostolic zeal soon impelled him to set out once more.

(3.) He made his third missionary tour through Galatia and Phrygia,
strengthening the churches which he had founded from town to town (Acts
Xviii. 23); and traversed Asia Minor as far as Hphesus, where for nearly
three years (A.D. 56-58) he laboured with peculiar power and fervour and
with eminent success (Acts xix. 1-xx. 1), although also assailed by severe
trials (Acts xx. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 32, comp. 2 Cor. 1. 8). This sojourn of the
Apostle was also highly beneficial for other churches than that at Ephesus;
for not only did he thence make a journey to Corinth, which city he now
visited for the second time (see on 2 Cor. introd. § 2), but he also wrote
towards the end of that sojourn what is known to us as the First Epistle to
the Corinthians, receiving subsequently intelligence of the impression made
by it from Timothy, whom he had sent to Corinth before he wrote, as well
as from Titus, whom he had sent after writing it. The Epistle to the Gala-
tians was also issued from Ephesus. He was impelled to leave this city by
his steadfast resolution now to transfer his labours to the far West, and in-
deed to Rome itself, but before doing so to revisit and exhort to steadfast-
ness in the faith his Macedonian and Achaean converts (Acts xix. 21, xx. 2),
as well as once more to go to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 31). Accordingly, after
Demetrius the silversmith had raised a tumult against him (Acts xix. 24 ff.),
which however proved fruitless, and after having suffered in Asia other se-
vere afflictions (2 Cor. i. 8), he travelled through Macedonia, whither he
went by way of Troas (2 Cor. ii. 12). And here, after having been joined
by both Timothy and Titus from Corinth, Paul wrote the Second Kpis-

SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 9

tle to the Corinthians. He then remained three months in Achaia (Acts xx.
3) where he issued from Corinth—which he now visited for the third time
(2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1)—his Epistle to the Romans. Paul now regards his
calling in the sphere of labour which he has hitherto occupied as fulfilled,
and is impelled to pass beyond it (2 Cor. x. 15 f.); he has preached the
Gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyria (Rom. xv. 19, 23); he desires to go
by way of Rome to Spain, as soon as he shall have conveyed to Jerusalem a
collection gathered in Macedonia and Greece (Rom. xv. 28 ff.). But it
does not escape his foreboding spirit that suffering and tribulation await
him in Judaea (Rom. xy. 30 ff.).

The Apostle’s missionary labours may be regarded as closed with this last
sojourn in Achaia ; for he now entered on his return journey to Jerusalem,
in consequence of which the capital of the world was to become the closing
scene of his labours and sufferings. Hindered solely by Jewish plots from
sailing directly from Achaia to Syria, he returned once more to Macedonia,
and after Easter crossed from Philippi to Troas (Acts xx. 3-6), where his
companions, who had set out previously, awaited him. Coming thence to
Miletus, he bade a last farewell with touching fervour and solemnity to the
presbyters of his beloved church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 ff.) ; for he was firmly
convinced in his own mind, filled as it was by the Spirit, that he was going
to meet bonds and afflictions (xx. 23). At Tyre he was warned by the
Christians not to go up to Jerusalem (xxi. 4); at Caesarea Agabus an-
nounced to him with prophetic precision the approaching loss of his free-
dom (xxi. 10 ff.), and his friends sought with tears to move him even now
to return ; but nothing could in the least degree shake his determination to
follow absolutely the impulse of the Spirit, which urged him towards
Jerusalem (xx. 22). He went thither (4.p. 59) with heroic self-denial and
yielding of himself to the divine purpose, in like manner as formerly the
Lord Himself made His last pilgrimage to the Jewish capital. Arriving
there shortly before Pentecost—for his object was not only to convey to the
brethren the gifts of love collected for them, but also to celebrate the
national festival, Acts xxiv. 17—he was induced by James and the pres-
byters to undertake immediately on the following day, for the sake of the
Judaists, a Nazarite vow (xxi. 17 ff.). But, while it was yet only the fifth
day of this consecration (see on Acts xxiv. 11), the Asiatic Jews fell upon
him in the temple, accusing him of having, as an enemy of the law and the
temple, brought Gentiles with him into the holy place ; and they would
have killed him, had not the tribune of the fort Antonia rescued him by
military force from their hands (xxi. 28-34). In vain he defended himself
before the people (Acts xxii.), and on the following day before the Sanhedrin
(xxiii. 1-10) ; but equally in vain was a plot now formed by certain Jews
who had bound themselves by an oath to put him to death (xxiii. 11-22) ;
for the tribune, when informed of it, had the Apostle conducted imme-
diately to the Procurator Felix at Caesarea (xxiii. 28-35). Felix was base
enough, in spite of Paul’s excellent defence, to detain him as a prisoner for
two years, in the expectation even of receiving a bribe ; and on his depart-
ure from the province, from a wish to gratify the Jews, left the Apostle to

10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

be dealt with by Porcius Festus his successor (summer, A.D. 61), Acts xxiv.
Even from the more equitable Festus, before whom the Jews renewed their
accusations and Paul the defence of his innocence, he did not receive the
justice that was his due ; wherefore he found himself compelled to make a
formal appeal to the Emperor (xxv. 1-12). Before this date however, whilst
living in the hope of a speedy release, he had written at Caesarea his Epis-
tles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (which are usually assigned to
the Roman captivity) ; see on Eph. introd. ὃ 2. His appeal, notwithstand-
ing the unanimously favourable opinions pronounced regarding him (Acts
xxvi.) after his solemn defence of himself before King Agrippa II. and his
sister (xxv. 13 ff.), was necessarily followed by his transference from Caesarea
to Rome. During the autumn voyage, on which he was accompanied by
Luke and Aristarchus, danger succeeded danger, after the Apostle’s wise
warnings were despised (Acts xxvii. 10, 11, 21) ; and it was only in conse-
quence of his advice being afterwards followed (Acts xxvii. 80-36) that all
were saved and, after the stranding of their vessel at Malta, happily landed
to pass the winter on that island. In the following spring he saw Rome,
though not—as it had been so long his earnestly cherished wish to visit it
(Rom. i. 10 ff.)—as the free herald of the Gospel. Still he there enjoyed
the favour—after receiving a custodia militaris—of being permitted to dwell
in his own hired house and to continue without interruption his work of in-
struction among all who came to him, This mild imprisonment lasted two
full years (from the spring of 62) : and as at this time his intrepid fidelity
to his office failed. not to make oral proclamation of the kingdom of God
(Acts xxviii. 80, 51 ; Phil. i. 12 ff.), so in particular the Hpistle to the Philip-
pians, which emanated from this time of captivity, is a touching proof of
that fidelity, as well as of the love which he still received and showed, of the
sufferings which he endured, and of the resignation and hope which alter-
nated within him. This letter of love may be called his swan’s song. The
two years’ duration of his further imprisonment did not decide his cause ;
and it does not make his release by any means self-evident,’ for Luke re-
ports nothing from this period respecting the progress of the Apostle’s trial.
But now all at once we lose all trustworthy accounts bearing on the further
course of his fate; and only thus much can be gathered from the testi-
monies of ecclesiastical writers as historically certain, that he died the death
of a martyr at Rome under Nero, and nearly at the same time* as Peter
suffered crucifixion at the same place. See the testimonies in Credner, Hin.
I. p. 318 ff. ; Kunze, praecip. Patrwm testim., quae ad mort. P. spect., Gott.

Rome—as, following Baur and others, Lip-
sius, Chronol. d. Rdm. Bischéfe, 1869, and
Quellen d. Rom. Petrussage, 1872, and Gun-

1 Τῇ opposition to Stélting, Beitr. z. Haxeg.
d. Paul. Br. p. 195.
2 Whether Peter suffered martyrdom

somewhat earlier than Paul (Ewald), or
some time later, cannot be made out from
Clement, Cor. I. 5, any more than from
other sources. Moreover this question is
bound up with that as to the place and
time of the composition of the First Epistle
of Peter. But that Peter never came to

dert in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1869, p. 306 ff.,
seek to prove (see the earlier literature on
the question in Bleek’s Hinleitung, Ὁ. 562)—
cannot, in view of the church tradition, be
maintained. The discussion of this question
in detail belongs to another place.

SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 11

1848 ; and generally Baur, Pavlus, I. p. 243 ff. ed. 2; Wiescler, p. 547 ff. ;
Otto, Pastoralbr. Ὁ. 149 ff. ; from the Catholic point of view, Déllinger,
Christenth. und Kirche, p. 79 ff. ed. 2.

The question however arises, Whether this martyrdom (beheading) was
the issue of his trial at that time (Petavius, Lardner, Schmidt, Eichhorn,
Heinrichs, Wolf, de altera Pauli captivit. Lips. 1819, 1821, Schrader, Hem-
sen, K6lner, Winer, Fritzsche, Baur, Schenkel, de Wette, Matthies, Wieseler,
Schaff, Ebrard, Thiersch, Reuss, Holtzmann, Judenth. ει. Christenth. p. 549 f.,
Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Otto, Volckmar, Krenkel, and others, including
Rudow, Diss. de argumentis historic., quibus epistolar. pastoral. origo Paul.
impugnata est, Gott. 1852, p. 6 ff.), or of a second Roman captivity, as has
been assumed since Eusebius (ii. 22) by the majority of ancient and modern
writers, including Michaelis, Pearson, Hinlein, Bertholdt, Hug, Heiden-
reich, Pastoralbr. II. p. ὁ ff., Mynster, hl. theol. Schr. p. 291 f., Guericke,
Bohl, Abfassungsze. d. Br. an Timoth. u. Tit., Berl. 1829, Ὁ. 91 ff., Kohler,?
Wurm, Schott, Neander, Olshausen, Kling, Credner, Neudecker, Wiesinger,
Baumgarten, Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 11. i. p. 386 ff., Bleek, Déllinger, Sepp,
Gams, ὦ. Jahr d. Martyrertodes d. Ap. Petr. u. Paul. 1867, Ewald, Huther,
and others. Since the testimony of Eusebius, /.c., which is quite of a gen-
eral character, confessedly has reference merely to a tradition (λόγος Eyer),
which was acceptable to him on account of 2 Tim. iv. 16 f., the historical
decision of this question turns on the statement of Clemens Romanus.? He
says, according to Dressel’s text,? 1 Cor. 5: Διὰ ζῆλον καὶ ὁ ἸΤαῦλος ὑπομονῆς
βραβεῖον ὑπέσχεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθεὶς, λιθασθεῖς. ἹΚῆρυξ γενόμενος
ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιο-
σύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν, καὶ μαρτυρῇσας
Οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη,
ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. This passage, it is thought, indicates
clearly enough that Paul before his death, passing beyond Italy, had reached
the farthest limit of the West, Spain,‘ and that therefore a second Roman

ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων.

718). The variations however of the dif-
ferent revisions of the text, whichis only

1 Who, curiously enough, further assumes
a third and fourth captivity.

2 Nothing at all bearing upon our question
can be derived from the testimony of
Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Euseb. ii.
25, to which Wiesinger still attaches weight.
It merely affirms that Peter and Paul having

"come to Italy, there taught, and died as
martyrs. Comp. Caius ap. Eus. 1. 6... Iren.
Haer. iii. 1; Tertull. Scorp. 15, praescr. 36;
and even the κήρυγμα Πέτρου (Clem. Strom.
vi. 5). These testimonies do not in the least
suggest the idea of a second presence in
Rome.

8 Dressel follows the recension of Jacob-
son (Oxon. 1838, and 2d ed. 1840), who col-
lated Cod. A anew, and carefully rectified
its text of the Epistle first issued by Patri-
cius Junius (Oxon. 1633), followed substan-
tially in that form by Cotelerius (Paris 1672),
and then amended by Wotton (Cantabr.

preserved, and that in a very faulty form,
in Cod. A, do not essentially affect the pres-
ent question. Even the form in which
Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 105 ff., and in the
Stud, κι. Krit. 1870, Ὁ. 135 ff.) gives the text
of the passage in Clement on the basis of
Tischendorf’s reproduction of Cod. A, is
without influence on our question. This
holds true also with respect to the latest
critical editions of the Clementine Epistles
by Hilgenfeld (V. 7. extra canonem, 1866, I.),
by Lightfoot (S. Clement of Rome. The two
Ppistles, ete. 1869), andby Laurent (Clem.
Rom. ad Cor. epistula, ete. 1870).

4 So also Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 620 ff. ed. 3,
who supposes that, when Paul heard in
Spain of the horrors of the Neronian perse-
cutions, he hurried back to Rome to bear
witness for Christianity ; that there he was

12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

imprisonment must be assumed. See especially Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon,
p- 51 ff. ; Huther, Pastoralbr. Hinl. p. 32 ff. ed. 3; Lightfoot 1.6., who un-
derstands by τέρμα τ. 6. Gades. In opposition to this view we need not seek
after any different interpretation of τὸ τέρμα τ. δύσεως 3 Whether it may be
taken to signify the western limit appointed to Paul (Baur, Schenkel, Otto)—
which certainly would be very meaningless—or the line of demarcation be-
tween East and West (Schrader, Hilgenfeld, apost. Vater, p. 109) ; or even
the centre of the West (Matthies). But it is to be observed :—1st. That the
language generally bears a highly rhetorical and hyperbolical character, and,
were it only for this reason, it is very hazardous to interpret the ‘‘limit of
the West” (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) with geographical accuracy. And is ποῦ
even the immediately preceding δικαίοσ. διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον a flourish of
exaggeration? 2d. Clement does not speak of East and West from his
own Roman standpoint, but, as was most naturally accordant with the
connection and design of his statement, from the standpoint of Paul, into
whose local relations he in thought transports himself. While the Apostle
laboured in Asia, he was in the Hast: then he passed over to Greece, and
thus had become, from his Oriental point of view, a herald also in the West.
But in the last crisis of his destiny he came even to the far West, as far as
Rome : and for this idea how naturally, in the midst of the highly coloured
language which he was using, did the expression ἐπὲ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών
suggest itself ! It could not have been misunderstood by the readers, because
people at Corinth could not but énow the place where Paul met hisdeath. 3d.
"Er? τῶν ἡγουμένων denotes (in allusion to Matt. x. 18) the rulers generally, be-
fore whom Paul gave testimony concerning Christ (μαρτυρήσας), after he had
reached this τέρμα τῆς δύσεως. If the latter denotes Rome, then we may without
hesitation, on historical grounds, conclude that the rulers are those Roman
magistrates before whom Paul made his defence in Rome. But if Spain
should be the ‘‘ goal of the West,” we should find ourselves carried by the
μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμ. to some scene of judicial procedure in Spain ; and
would it not in that case be necessary to assume a sojourn of the Apostle
there, which that very trial would render ‘specially memorable ? But how
opposed to such a view is the fact, that no historical trace, at all certain, is
preserved of any church founded by Paul in Spain! For the testimonies to
this effect adduced by Gams, Hirchengesch. v. Spanien, p. 26, Sepp, Gesch.
der Ap. p. 314, ed. 2, and others, contain nothing but traditions, which
have merely arisen from the hypothetical Spanish journey of Paul. And to
say with Huther that the Apostle had travelled (ἐλθών) to Spain, but had not
laboured there, is to have recourse to an explanation at variance with the in-
trinsic character of Paul himself and with the context of Clement. Besides,
according to Rom. xv. 23 f., Paul desired to transfer his ministry, that was
accomplished in the East, to Spain. 4th. If ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τ. δύσεως ἐλθών was
intended to transport the reader to Spain, then it would be most natural,
since οὕτως sums up the previous participial clauses, to transfer the ἀπηλλάγη

arrested, placed once more on trial, and the Book of Acts itself, at i. 8, points by
condemned to death. According to Ewald way of anticipation to the Spanish journey.

SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 19

tov κόσμου also to Spain; for just as this ἀπηλλ. 7. x. is manifestly correlative
to the δικαιοσύνην διδάξ. ὅλον τ. κόσμον, 80 εἰς τ. ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη Corresponds
with the ἐπὶ τ. so that Paul, starting from the τέρμα
τ. δύσεως, Which he has reached, and where he has borne his testimony
before the rulers, enters on his journey to the holy place. It is only, there-
fore, when we understand Jtaly as the western limit, that the language of
Clement is in harmony with the historical circumstances of the case.’ See,
moreover, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. ad Cor. 1. p. 129, and Chronol. d. rém. Bis-
chéfe, p. 163 ff. It cannot withal be overlooked that in the so-called Epist.
Clem. ad Jacobum, c. 1, there is manifestly an echo of our passage, and yet
Rome alone is designated as the final goal of the Apostle’s labours : τὸν éodu-
evov ἀγαθὸν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσαι βασιλέα, μέχρισ ἐνταῦθα TH “Ῥώμῃ γενόμενος,

τέρμα τ. δύσεως K.T.A. ;

εοβουλήτῳ διδασκαλίᾳ σώζων ἀνθρώπους, αὐτὸς τοῦ νῦν βίου βιαίως τὸ ζὴν μετήλλαξεν.
After this the conjecture of Wieseler (and Schaff, Hist. of Apost. Church,
p- 342), who, instead of ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα, as given by Junius, would read ὑπὸ
τὸ τέρμα, and explain it ‘‘before the supreme power of the West,” is un-
necessary. It is decisive against this view that Jacobson, as well as
Wotton, found ἐπὶ in the Cod. A, and that Tischendorf likewise has attested
the existence of καὶ ἐπὶ as beyond doubt. But, besides, Wieseler’s expe-
dient would not be admissible on grounds of linguistic usage, for τέρμα in
the sense assumed is only used with ἔχειν ; see Eur. Suppl. 617, Or. 1848,
Jacobs. ad Del. epigr. p. 287. From the very corrupt text of the Canon
Muratorii,? nothing can be gathered bearing on our question, except that

1 Tf we render μαρτυρήσας martyrium pas-
sus (Credner, Lange, and older writers), this
result comes out the more clearly, since at
all events Paul died in Rome ; along with
which indeed Déllinger further finds in ἐπὶ
τῶν ἥγουμ. an evidence for the year 67 that
has been the traditional date since Euse-
bius, Chron. (comp. also Gams, Jahr d.
Martyrertodes, etc.; and Sepp, 1.6. p. 379),
when Nero was absent and the Prefecis
ruled in Rome. See his Christenth vw.
Kirche, p. 101, ed. 2. Against that chrono-
logical determination, see generally Bax-
mann, dass Petr. u. Paul nicht am 29. Junius
67. gemartert worden sind, 1867.

2The passage in question runs, ‘‘ Acta
autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro
sunt. Lucas optime Theophile comprindit
(comprehendit), quia sub praesentia ejus
singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote pas-
sionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed profec-
tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficis-
centis.” Wieseler conjectures that after
proficiscentis the word omittit has been left
out ; that semote means: at a separate place,
viz.not in the Acts of the Apostles, but in
the Gospel, xxii. 31-33. A very forced con-
jecture, with which nevertheless Volkmar
(in Credner’s Gesch. d. Kanon, p.343) agrees,
supposing that a non has dropped out after

proficiscentis. Credner, 1.6. p. 155 f., con-
jectured semofa (namely loca, which is sup-
posed to refer to John xxi. 18 ff., and Rom.
xv. 24), and thene¢ instead of sed. Otto, p.
154, would read sic e¢ instead of sed ; mak-
ing the meaning: ‘‘consequently (sic) he
declares openly, that just as (wi eZ) in his
absence the martyrdom of Peter took place,
so likewise (sic e¢) the journey of Paul,” ete.
But how much must we thus introduce into
the semote/ Laurent alters into: ‘ semota
passione... et profectione,” ete. Various
suggestions are made by others ; see Ewald,
Jahrb. VIL. p. 126, whose own procedure is
the boldest. Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Krit. d.
N. 7T., p. 42, thinks that the author has
“ quessed”’ the martyrdom of Peter and the
Spanish journey of Paul from the abrupt
close of the Acts of the Apostles. Such a
theory should have been precluded by the
“evidenter declarat,’ for which indeed
Ewald would read ‘‘ evidenter decerpit” or
“decollat.” If we must resort to conjecture
(and it is necessary), it seems the simplest
course, instead of ef semote, to insert id
semotam, and then instead of sed, et. This
would yield the sense: as this circumstance
(id), viz. the writing down only what took
place in his presence, evidently explains the
exclusion (semotam) of the passion of Peter ana

14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

the author was already acquainted with the tradition of the journey to
Spain afterwards reported by Eusebius; not, that he wished to refute
it (Wieseler, Ὁ. 536). On the other hand, Origen (in Euseb. 111. 1:
τί δεῖ περὶ Παύλου λέγειν ἀπὸ 'ΤἹερουσαλὴμ μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ιλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκότος τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ὕστερον ἐν τῇ Ῥώμη ἐπὶ Νέρωνος μεμαρτυρηκότος)
tacitly excludes the Spanish journey. The tradition regarding it arose very
naturally out of Rom. xv. 24 (Jerome: ‘‘ad Italiam quoque et, ut dpse
scribit, ad Hispanias—portatus est”), and served as a needed historical basis
for the explanation of 2 Tim., acquiring the more general currency both on
this account and because it tended to the glorification of the Apostle. It
is further worthy of attention that the pseudo-Abdias, in his Historia Apos-
tolica, ii. 7, 8 (in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. p. 452 ff.), represents the execution as
the issue of the captivity reported in the Acts. Had this author been a be-
liever ina liberation, as well as in a renewed missionary activity and
second imprisonment, he would have been the last to refrain from bringing
forward wonderful reports regarding them. Substantiaily the same may be
said of the Acta Petri et Pauli in Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. Ὁ. 1 ff.

Nole.—If we regard the Epistles to Timothy and Titus—which, moreover, stand
or fall together—as genuine, we must take, as Eusebius in particular has done
with reference to 2 Tim., the tradition of the Apostle’s liberation from Rome
and of a second captivity there as an historical postulate,! in order to gain the
room which cannot otherwise be found for the historical references of those
Epistles, and the latest possible time for their other contents. But the more
defective the proof of the second imprisonment is, the more warranted remain
the doubts as to the genuineness of these Epistles, which arise out of their own
contents ; while in virtue of these doubts the Epistles, in their turn, cannot
themselves be suitably adduced in proof of that captivity. Besides, it cannot
be left out of view that in all the unquestionably genuine Epistles which Paul
wrote during his imprisonment, every trace of the previously (Rom. xv, 24)
cherished plan of a journey to Spain has vanished ; and that in the Epistle to
the Philippians, which was certainly not written till he was in Rome (i. 25 f.,
ii. 24), he contemplates as his further goal in the event of his liberation, not
the far West, but Macedonia, or in other words a return to the Kast. From
Acts xxiii. 11, however, no evidence can be adduced against the Spanish
journey (as Otto contends), because in this passage there is no express mention
of a last goal, excluding all further advance.

of the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain.
On both of these occasions the author
accordingly thinks that Luke was not pres-
ent, and thereby the fact that he has
omitted them in his book is explained.

1 This isthe ground assumed by the latest
expositors of the Pastoral Epistles, who
maintain their genuineness, Wiesinger and
Huther; whilst Rudow, again, in the al-
ready mentioned Dissert. 1852, only rejects
the First Ep. to Timothy (comp. Bleek), and

calling in question a second captivity, as-
cribes the Second Ep. to Timothy to the
first imprisonment, and the Ep. to Titus to
the sojourn at Ephesus. So also Otto, with
respect to the two last-named Epistles ;
but he regards the First Ep. to Timothy as
aletter of instruction for Timothy in view
of his mission to Corinth, consequently as
nearly contemporaneous with the Ep. to
Titus. See, in opposition to Otto, Huther
on the Pastoral Epistles, Introd. ed. ὃ.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 15

ὃ 2. Tae Curistran Cuurcn AT Rome.'

That the Christian Church in Rome had been in existence for a consider-
able time when Paul wrote to it, is clear from 1: 8-18 and xiii. 11, 15; and
that it was already a church formally constituted, may be gathered from
the general analogy of other churches that had already been long in exists
ence, from xii. 5 ff., and less certainly from xvi. 5. Especially may the
existence of a body of presbyters, which was essential to church organiza-
tion (Acts xiv. 23), be regarded as a matter of course. In the Acts of the
Apostles the existence of the Church is presupposed (xxviii. 15) as something
well known ; and the author, who follows the thread of his Apostle’s biog-
raphy, had no occasion to narrate its origin or development.

The origin of the Roman Church cannot therefore be determined with
certainty. It is not incredible that even during the lifetime of Jesus faith
in Him had taken root, in individual cases, among the Roman Jews (comp.
Clem. Recogn. i. 6). For among the pilgrims who flocked to the festivals at
Jerusalem from all countries Romans also were wont to be present (Acts ii.
10), and that too in considerable numbers, because the multitude of Jews in
Rome had since the time of Pompey become extraordinarily great (see Philo,
leg. ad. Caj. Il. p. 568; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11, 1), in-
cluding Jews directly from Palestine (prisoners of war, see Philo, /.c.),-of
whom. a large portion had-attained-to freedom, the rights of citizenship, and
even wealth. Is it unlikely that individual festal pilgrims from Rome, im-
pressed by the words and works of Jesus in Jerusalem, carried back with them
to.their homes the first seeds of the-faith ? To this view it cannot-be-objected
(as by Reiche), that Christianity~did-not..spread. beyond the bounds of
Palestine until after the miracle of Pentecost ; for there is mention, in fact,
in Matt. x. of the official missionary activity of the Apostles, and in Acts
viii. 1 ff. of that of emigrants from Jerusalem. If the former and the latter
did not labour in foreign lands until a subsequent period, this by no means
excludes the possibility of the conversion of individual foreigners, partly
Jews, partly proselytes, who became believers in Jerusalem. It is further prob-
able that there were some Romans among the three thousand who came over
to the Christian faith at the first Pentecost (Acts 11. 10) ; at least it would
be very arbitrary to exclude these, who are expressly mentioned among the
witnesses of what occurred at Pentecost, from participation in its reswlis.
Lastly,it_is probable that the persecution-which broke out with the stoning
of Stephen drove some Palestinian Christians to take refuge even in the
distant capital of the world, distinguished by its religious toleration, and in
fact inclined to Oriental modes of worship (Athenaeus, Deipnos. I. p. 20 B.,
calls it ἐπιτομὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης, and says: καὶ yap ὅλα τὰ ἔθνη ἀθρόως αὐτόθι

1 See Th. Schott, α΄. Rémerbriefs. Endzweck ἰ. Krit. 1867, p. 627 ff. ; comp. also Grau, 2.
u. Gedankengang nach, Erl. 1858; Mangold, Hinfiihr. in ἃ. Schriftth. N. T., Stuttg. 1868,
d. Réimerbr. u. d. Anfinge ἃ. rém. Gem. and his Entwickelungsgesch. d. neut. Schriftth.
Marb. 1866; Wieseler in Herzog’s Eneyht. TI. 1871, p. 102 ff.; Sabatier, 7?apdire Paul,
XX. p. 583 ff. (1866) ; Beyschlag in the Stud. 1870.

16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

For that this dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem was not
confined to-Samariaand_Judaea (an objection here urged by Reiche and
K6llner), is proved by Acts xi. 19, where emigrants are mentioned who had
gone_as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. And how easily might some find
their way even to Rome, seeing that the brisk maritime intercourse between
these places and Italy afforded them opportunity, and seeing that they
might expect to find admittance and repose among their countrymen in
Rome, who were strangers to the fanatical zeal of Palestine. But although,
in consequence of the constant intercourse maintained by the Jews at Rome
with Asia, Egypt, and Greece, and especially with Palestine (Gieseler,
Kirchengesch. I. § 17), various Christians may have visited Rome, and _vari-
ous. Jews from Rome may have become Christians, all.the influences hitherto
mentioned could not establish a Christian congregational life in Rome. In-
dividual Christians were there, and certainly also Christian fellowship, but
still no organized church. ΤῸ plant such a church, there was needed, as is
plain from the analogy of all other cases of the founding of churches with
which we are acquainted, official action on the part of teachers endowed
directly or indirectly with apostolic authority.

Who the founder of the Roman congregational life was, however, is utterly
unknown. The Catholic Church names the Apostle Peter; concerning
whom, along with the gradual development of the hierarchy, there has been
a gradual development of tradition, that he came to Rome in the second
year, or at any rate about the beginning of the reign of the Emperor
Claudius (according to Gams, A.D. 41), to overcome Simon Magus, and re-
mained there twenty-five years (Gams : twenty-four years and an indefinite
number of days), till his death, as its first bishop. See Eusebius, Chron. (in
Mai’s Script. vet. nov. coll. VII. p. 876, 378) ; and Jerome, de vir. ill. 1.1
But that Peter in the year 44, and at the date of the apostolic conference in
the year 52, was still resident in Jerusalem, is evident from Acts xil. 4, xv.
7, and Gal. ii. 1 ff. From Acts xii. 7 a journey to Rome cannot be in-
ferred.? Further, that still later, when Paul was living at Ephesus, Peter
had not been labouring in Rome, is evident from Acts xix. 21, because Paul
followed the principle of not interfering with another Apostle’s field of
labour (Rom. xv. 20 ; comp. 2 Cor. x. 16) ; and, had Peter been in Rome

΄
συνῴκισται .

explained an old inscription as referring to
Simon Magus. Comp. also Uhlhorn, d.

1 See generally, Lipsius, α. Quellen d. Rom.
Petrussage, Kiel, 1872. As to the way in

which that tradition, the germs of which
are found in Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb.
H. #. ii. 25), gradually developed itself into
the complete and definite form given above,
see Wieseler, chronol. Synops. p. 571; regard-
ing the motley legends connected with it,
see Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 341, ed. 2; con-
cerning the unhistorical matter to be elim-
inated from the report of Jerome, see
Huther on 1 Peter, Introd.; comp. Credner,
Kinl. 11. p. 882. The alleged presence of
Simon in Rome is probably the mere prod-
uct of a misconception, by which Justin,
Apol. i. 26 (comp. Irenaeus, Haer. i. 23),

Homil. τι. Recogn. αἰ. Clem. p. 378 ἔν; Moller in
Herzog’s Encykl. X1V. p. 392 ff.; Bleek, p.563 f.

2 Even if Peter had actually, in the course
of his foreign travels (1 Cor. ix. 5), visited
Rome once in the time of Claudius (comp.
on Acts xii. 17), which Ewald (apost. Zeit.
p. 606 f. ed. 8.) concedes to ecclesiastical
tradition, not calling in question even a
meeting with Simon Magus there, yet we
cannot regard this as involving the founda-
tion of the Roman church and the episcopal
position. Otherwise Paul would have in-
truded on anotherlabourer’s field. See the
sequel.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 1?
when Paul wrote to the Romans, he would have been saluted by the latter
before all others; for the numerous salutations in ch. xvi. presuppose an
accurate acquaintance with the teachers who were then in Rome. Peter
cannot have been labouring in Rome at all before Paul himself was brought
thither, because the former, as Apostle to the Jews, would have brought
Christianity into closer contact with the Jewish population there than is
apparent in Acts xxviii. 22. It is even in the highest degree improbable
that Peter was in Rome prior to the writing of the Epistle to the Philip-
pians—the only one which was certainly written by Paul in Rome—or at the
time of its being written ; for it is inconceivable that Paul should not in
this letter have mentioned a /fellow-Apostle, and that one Peter, especially
when he had to complain so deeply of being forsaken as at Phil. ii. 20.
Consequently the arrival of Peter in Rome, which was followed very soon
by his execution—and which is accredited by such ancient and strong tes-
timony (Dionysius of Corinth, in Euseb. ii. 25; Caius, in Euseb. ii. 25 ;
Origen, in Euseb. iii. 1; Irenaeus; Tertullian, etc.) that it cannot be in
itself rejected—is to be placed only towards the end of Paul's captivity, sub-
sequent to the composition of the Epistle to the Philippians. If, therefore,
the tradition of the Roman Church having been founded by Peter—a view
disputed even by Catholic theologians like Hug, Herbst, Feilmoser, Klee,
Ellendorf, Maier;-and Stengel, who however are vehemently opposed by
Windischmann, Stenglein, Reithmayr, and many others’—must be en-
tirely disregarded (although it is still defended among Protestants by Ber-
tholdt, Mynster, and Thiersch), it is on the other hand highly probable, that
a Christian church was founded at Rome only subsequent to Paul’s trans-
ference of his missionary labours to Europe ; since there is no sort of indi-
cation, that on his first appearance in Macedonia and Achaia he anywhere
found a congregation already existing. He himself in fact stood in need of
a special direction from Christ to pass over to Europe (Acts xvi. 9 f.) ; and
so another official herald of the faith can hardly before that time have pen-
etrated as far as Italy. But, when Paul was labouring successfully in
Greece, it was very natural that apostolic men of his school should find
motive and occasion for carrying their evangelic ministry still further west-

1 Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, Ὁ. 95 ff.
ed. 2, still seeks to support it on the usual
grounds, and in doing so starts from the
purely fanciful ἃ priori premiss, that the
Roman Church must have been founded by
an Apostle, with the equally arbitrary con-
clusion: ‘‘and that Apostle can only have
been Peter.” He gives to the twenty-five
years’ duration of the Petrine episcopatus a
curious round-about interpretation, accord-
ing to which the episcopate is made to
mean merely ecclesiastical dignity in gen-
eral; see p.317. The passage of Dionysius
of Corinth in Euseb. ii. 25 is misinterpreted
by him.—It ill accords with the Roman epis-
copate of Peter that in Euseb. iii. 2, and
Trenaeus, iii. 8, Zinws is expressly named as

the jirst Roman bishop; and in fact in the
Constit. ap. vii. 46, 1, it is said that he was
appointed by Paul; while Peter only nom-
inated the second bishop (Clemens) after the
death of Linus. According to this state-
ment Peter had nothing to do with the
founding of the Roman episcopate, and
neither Paul nor Peter was bishop in Rome.
On the whole it is to be maintained that no
Apostle at all was bishop of a church. The
apostolate and the presbyterate were two
specifically distinct offices in the service of
the Church. In Rome especially the succes-
sion of bishops can only be _ historically
proved from Xystus onward (οὐ. 125) ; see
Lipsius, J. ¢.

WH

/

18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. ,

-ward,—to the capital of the Gentile world. The expulsion of the Jews
from Rome under Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25 ; Acts xviii. 2) served, under
Divine guidance, as a special means for this end. Refugees to the neigh-
bouring Greece became Christians, Christians of the Pauline type, and then,
on their return to Rome, came forward as preachers of Christianity and
organizers-of-a-church. We have historical confirmation of this in the
instance of Aquila and Priscilla, who emigrated as Jews to Corinth, dwelt
there with Paul for upwards-of-a—year-and-a-half,and at the date of our
Epistle had again settled in Rome, where they appear, as previously in
Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), according to Rom. xvi. 3 as teachers and_ the pos-
sessors of a house where the Roman church assembled.’ It is probable that
others also, especially among the persons mentioned in ch. xvi., were in
similar ways led by God ; but it is certain that a chief place among the
founders of the church belongs to Aquila and Priscilla ; since among the
many who are greeted by Paul in the 16th chap. he presents to them the
Jirst salutation, and that with a more laudatory designation than is accorded
to any of the others.

Christianity, having taken root in the first instance among the Jews, found
the more readily an entrance among the Gentiles in Rome, because the pop-
ular heathen religion had already fallen into a contempt inducing despair
both among the cultivated and uncultivated classes (see Gieseler I. i. § 11-
14 ; Schneckenburger, newtest. Zeitgesch. p. 59 f.; Holtzmann, Judenthumu.
Christenthum, Ὁ. 305 ff.). Hence the inclination to Monotheism was very
general ; and the number of those who had gone over to Judaism was very
great (Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. ; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, Hist. v. 5 ; Seneca, in
Augustine, de civ. Dei, vii. 11 ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3, 5). How much at-
tention and approval, therefore, must the liberal system of religion, elevated
above all the fetters of a deterrent legal rigour, as preached by Aquila and
other Pauline teachers, have met with among the Romans dissatisfied with
heathenism ἢ From the description of most of the persons named in ch. xvi.,
from the express approval given to the doctrine in which the Romans had been
instructed, xvi. 17, vi. 17, and even from the fact of the composition of the
letter itself, inasmuch as not one of the now extant letters of the Apostle is
directed to a non-Pauline church, we may with certainty infer that Pauline
Christianity was preponderant in Rome ; and from this it is a further neces-
sary inference that a very important part of the Roman church consisted of
Gentile- Christians. This Gentile-Christian part must have been the prepon-
derating one, and must have formed its chief constituent element (in opposi-
tion to Baur, Schwegler, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Volkmar,
Reuss, Lutterbeck, Thiersch, Holtzmann, Mangold, Grau, and Sabatier),

1 That this married pair came to Corinth,
not as Christians, but as still Jews, and were
there converted to Christianity through
Paul, see on Acts xviii. 1,2. Comp. Reiche,
J. p. 44 f.; Wieseler, 1.6. p. 586.—Moreover,
that the Christians, (Jewish-Christians) res-
ident in Rome were driven into exile along
with other Jews by the edict of Claudius,

can neither be proved nor yet controverted
from the well-known passage in Sueton.
Claud. 25 (see on Acts xviii. 1); for at that
time the Christian body, which at all events
was very small and isolated, was not yet
independent, but still united with the Jew-
ish population.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME, 19

since Paul expressly and repeatedly designates and addresses the Romans in
general as belonging to the ἔθνη (i. 6, 18, xi. 18) ; and asserts before them
the importance of his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles (xv. 15 f., i. 5 ; comp.
xvi. 4, 26). Comp. Neander, Gesch. ἃ. Pflanzung, etc., ed. 4, p. 452 ff.,
Tholuck, Philippi, Wieseler, Hofmann. Indeed, we must presume, in ac-
cordance with the apostolic agreement of Gal. ii. 7 ff., that Paul would not
have written a doctrinal Epistle to the Romans, especially one containing
his entire gospel, if the church had been, in the main, a church of the περι-
τομὴ and not of the axpofvoria.’ Even ch. vii. 1, where the readers are de-
scribed as γινώσκοντες νόμον, as well as the numerous references to the Old
Testament, and proofs adduced from it, are far from attesting the predomi-
nance of Jewish Christianity in Rome.? They are fully explained, when we
recollect that in the apostolic age all Christian knowledge was conveyed.
through the channel of the Old Testament (xvi. 26) ; that an acquaintance
with the law and the prophets, which was constantly on the increase by their
being publicly read in the assemblies (comp. on Gal. iv. 21), was also to be
found among the Gentile-Christians ; and that the mingling of Jews and
Gentiles in the churches, even without a Judaizing influence being exerted
on the latter (as in the case of the Galatians), could not but tend to further
the use of that Old Testament path which Christian preaching and knowl-
edge had necessarily to pursue. The grounds upon which Baur (in the
Tubing. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 144 ff., 1857, p. 60 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p.
343 ff. ed. 2 ; also in his Christenth. ἃ. drei erst. Jahrb. p. 62 ff. ed. 2 ; see
also Volkmar, d. Rém. Kirche, p. 1 ff.; Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p.
411) seeks to establish the preponderance of Jewish Christianity will be dealt
with in connection with the passages concerned ; as will also the defence of
that preponderance which Mangold has given, while correcting in many re-
spects the positions of Baur. The middle course attempted by Beyschlag,
lec. p. 640—that the main element of the church consisted of native Roman
proselytes to Judaism, so that we should regard the church as Gentile- Ohris-
tian in its lineage, but as Jewish- Christian in its habits of thought—is unsupport-
ed by any relevant evidence in the Epistle itself, or by any indication in par-
ticular of a previous state of proselytism.

But even if there was merely a considerable portion of the Christian church
at Rome consisting of those who had been previously Jews (as, in particular,
xiv. 1 ff. refers to such), it must still appear strange, and might even cast a
doubt upon the existence of a regularly organized church (Bleek, Beitr. p.
55, and Hinl. p. 412 ; comp. Calovius and others), that when Paul arrives

i By this Epistle he would have gone be-
yond the line laid down by him for his own
field of labour (comp. 2 Cor. x. 13 ff.), and
would have interfered in the sphere not
assigned to him—the Apostleship to the Jews.

3 Even in the Epistle of Clement, written
in the name of the Roman Church, with its
numerous O. T. references, the Gentile-
Christian and Pauline element of thought
predominates, although there is a manip-

ulation of Pauline views and ideas in ac-
cordance with the ‘Christian legalism”
(Ritsch], altkath. K. p. 274 ff.) of a later
period. Comp. Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. Ep.
ad Vor. pr. 1855; and Mangold, p. 167 ff. I
cannot agree with Wieseler and others that
this Epistle was written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, but with Ritschl and
others assign it to the time of Domitian ;
comp. Cotelerius.

20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

as a prisoner in Rome, and wishes to acquaint himself with the Jewish com-
munity there, the leaders of the latter make no mention of a Christian con-
gregation at Rome, but evince merely a superficial cognizance of the Christian
sect in general (Acts xxviii. 22). But the Jewish leaders are here speaking
as officials, and, as such, are not inclined without special immediate occasion
to express their views before the captive stranger as to the position of the
Christian body which existed in Rome itself. A designation of the Christian
sect generally in accordance with its notorious outward reputation—such as
might bring it into suspicion—is enough for them ; but as to the precise
relation in which this sect stands to them in Rome itself they do not feel them-
selves called upon to say anything for the present, and, with discreet reserve,
are therefore wholly silent respecting it. This narrative therefore of Acts is
neither to be regarded as a fiction due to the tendency of the author (Baur,
Zeller, Holtzmann), nor to be explained, arbitrarily and inadequately, by
the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius (Olshausen), which had induced
the Roman Jewish-Christians to separate themselves entirely from the Jews,
so that on the return of the latter from exile the former remained unnoticed
by them. Neither is it to be accounted for, with Neander—overlooking the
peculiar character of Jewish religious interests—by the vast size of the me-
tropolis ; nor, with Baumgarten, by the predominance of the Gentile-Chris-
tians there ; nor yet, with older writers, by the hypothesis—unjust and inca-
pable of proof—that the Roman Jews acted a dishonest and hypocritical part
on the occasion. Not dishonesty, but prudence and caution are evinced in
their conduct (comp. Schneckenburger, Philippi, Tholuck, Mangold), for
the explanation of which we do not require, in addition to what they them-
selves express in ver. 22, to assume any special outward reason, such as that
they had been rendered by the Claudian measure more shy and reserved (Phi-
lippi ; comp. Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 588, ed. 3) ; especially seeing that there
is no just ground for referring the words of Suetonius, ‘‘ Judaeos impulsore
Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit” (Claud. 25), to disputes between
Jews and Christians relative to the Messiahship of Jesus, contrary to the
definite expression ‘‘ tumultuare.” ὦ

We may add that our Epistle—since Peter cannot have laboured in Rome
before it was written—is a fact destructive of the historical basis of the Papacy,

1 The Chrestus of Suetonius was a Jewish
agitator in Rome, who was actually so
called. See on Acts xviii. 2, and Wieseler,
p. 585. Every other interpretation is fanci-
ful, including even the one given above,
which is adopted by the majority of mod-
ern writers, among others by Baur, Holtz-
mann, Keim, Grau,and Mangold. Thiersch
is peculiar in adding to it the groundless
assertion, that ‘“‘the disturbances arose
through the testimony of Peter to the Mes-
siah in Rome, but that Peter had again
left Rome even before the expulsion of the
Jews by Claudius.’? Groundless is also the
opinion of Philippi, that, if Chrestus is to be
taken as an agitator, he must have beena

pseudo-Messiah. 'The pseudo-Messiahs ap-
peared much later. But after the analo-
gies of Judas and Theudas, other insur-
gents are conceivable enough—enthusiasts
for political freedom and zealots. Bey-
schlag, p. 652 ff., likewise taking Chrestus
as equivalent to Christus, infers too rashly,
from the passage in Suetonius, that the
Roman Church was chiefly composed of
proselytes, who, when the native -born
Jews were expelled, remained behind.
Miircker (Lehre von der Erlis. nach d.
Réimerbr. Meining, 1870, p. 3) rightly rejects
the interchange of the names Chrestus and
Christus.

OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 21

in so far as the latter is made to rest on the founding of the Roman church
and the exercise of its episcopate by that Apostle. For Paul the writing of
such a didactic Epistle to a church of which he knew Peter to be the founder
and bishop, would have been, according to the principle of his apostolic in-
dependence, an impossible inconsistency.

ὃ 3. Occasion, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.’

Long before writing this epistle (ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, xv. 23) the Apostle had
cherished the fixed and longing desire (Acts xix. 21) to preach the Gospel
in person at Rome (i. 11 ff.)—in that metropolis of the world, where the
flourishing of Christianity would necessarily exert an influence of the utmost
importance on the entire West ; and where, moreover, the special relation —
in which the church stood to the Apostle through its Pauline founders and
teachers, and through the many friends and fellow-labourers whom he pos-
sessed in the city (ch. xvi.), claimed his ardent and loving interest. His
official labours in other regions had hitherto prevented the carrying out of
this design (i. 13, xv. 22). Now indeed he hoped that he should soon
accomplish its realization ; but, partly because he wished first to undertake
his collection-journey to Jerusalem (xv. 23-25), and partly because Spain,
and not Rome (xv. 24-28), was to be the goal of his travels to the West, a
lengthened sojourn in Rome cannot have formed part of his plan at that
time. Accordingly, in pursuance of his apostolic purpose with reference to
the Roman church, he could not but wish, on the one hand, no longer to
withhold from it at least such a written communication of his doctrine, which
he had so long vainly desired to proclaim orally, as should be suitable to
the church’s present need ; and on the other hand, by this written com-
munication to pave the way for his intended personal labours in such fitting
manner as to render a prolonged stay there unnecessary. This twofold de-
sire occasioned the composition of our Epistle, for the transmission of which
the journey of the Corinthian deaconess Phoebe to Rome (xvi. 1) afforded
an opportunity which he gladly embraced. He could not fail to possess a
sufficient acquaintance with the circumstances of the church, when we con-
sider his position towards the teachers saluted in ch. xvi., and the eminent
importance of the church itself—of whose state, looking to the active inter-
course between Corinth and Rome, he was certainly thoroughly informed—
as well as the indications afforded by ch. xii. xiv. xv. That the Epistle was
called forth by special communications made from Rome itself (possibly by
Aquila and Priscilla) is nowhere apparent from its contents ; on the con-
trary, such a view is, from the general nature of the contents, highly im-
probable. Of all the Apostle’s letters, our present Epistle is that which has
least arisen out of the necessity of dealing with special caswal circumstances.
According to Baur, the readers, as Jewish Christians (imbued also with
erroneous Ebionite views), gave rise to the letter by their opposition to Paul,
in so far, namely, as they saw in Paul’s apostolic labours among the Gentiles

1 See, besides the works quoted in § 2, Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeilschr. 1868, p. 38 ff. ,

22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

a detriment to the Jews, contrary to the promises given to them by God,
and therefore asserted the national privileges of their theocratic primacy in
an exclusive spirit as opposed to the universalism of the Pauline teaching.
Comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeit. I. p. 285 ff. ; Volkmar, 1.6. p. 7 ff. ;
and also Reuss, Gesch. d. NV. T. ὃ 105 ff. ed. 4. In this view the Epistle is
made to assume a specifically polemic character, which it manifestly has not
(how very different in this respect the Ep. to the Galatians and those to the
Corinthians !) ; it is assumed that the Church was a Jewish-Christian one ;
and an importance, too great in relation to the whole, and indefensible
from an exegetical point of view,*is attached to the section, chs. ix.—xi.
(even in Baur’s second edition, which contains on this point a partial retrac-
tation), while, on the other hand, the two last chapters have to be sacrificed
to critical doubts that have no foundation. In no other Pauline Epistle is
the directly polemical element so much in the background ; and where it
does find expression, it is only for the moment (as in xvi. 17—20),—a sure
proof that it was least of all the concrete appearance and working of Anti-
paulinism which the Apostle had occasion in this Epistle to oppose.
Against that enemy he would have waged a very different warfare, as is
shown in particular in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, so nearly
allied in its contents. Nor is that enemy to be discovered in the weak in
faith of xiv. 1 ff. Ofcourse, however, Paul could not present his Gospel other-
wise than in antagonism to the Jewish righteousness of works and arrogance,
which it had already overcome and would continue to do so ; for this an-
tagonism belonged to the essence of his Gospel and had to assert itself,
wherever there was Judaism—only in various forms and degrees according
to the given circumstances—and therefore at Rome as well. The view of
Thiersch (Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 166), that Paul desired to elevate the
Jewish Christian church, which had consisted of the simple followers of
Peter, from their still somewhat backward standpoint to more enlarged
views, rests on the erroneous opinion that Peter had laboured in Rome.

The object of our Epistle, accordingly, was by no means the drawing up of
a systematic doctrinal system in general (see, against this view, Késtlin
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 68 ff. ; Grau, Hntwickelungsgesch.
If. p. 114) ; but it is not on the other hand to be restricted more
specially than by saying: Paul wished to lay before the Romans in
writing, for their Christian edification (i. 11, xvi. 25), his evangelic doc-
trine—the doctrine of the sole way of salvation given in Christ—viewed
in its full, specific character as the superseding of Judaism, in such a way
as the necessities and cireumstances of the church demanded, and as he would
have preached it among them, had he been present in person (i. 11). The mode
in which he had to accomplish this was determined by the circumstance,
that he deemed it necessary for his object fully to set forth before the

1 Baur previously, after his dissertation Huther’s Zweck u. Inhalt ἃ. 11 ersten Kap. a.
in the 772d. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, found even the Rémerbr. 1846, p. 24f. Baur, in his Chris-
principal theme of the whole Epistle in chs. tenth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 62 ff. ed. 2, has
ix.-xi., for which chs. i—viii. only serve modified his view on this point.
as introduction. See against this view

OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE, 23

Roman church, in a manner proportioned to the high importance of its
position, this Gospel as to which his disciples had already instructed them,
in the entire connection of its constituent fundamental principles. In no other
letter has he done this so completely and thoroughly ;? hence it is justly
regarded as a grand scheme of his whole teaching,* in the precise form
which he held to be suitable for its presentation to the Romans. How much
he must have had this at heart ! How much he must have wished to erect
such a complete and abiding memorial of Ais Gospel in the very capital of
the Gentile world, which was to become the Antioch of the West! Not
merely the present association of Jews and Gentiles in the church, but, gen-
erally, the essential relation in which according to the very Pauline teach-
ing, Christianity stood to Judaism, required him to subject this relation in
particular, viewed in its strong antagonism to all legal righteousness, to an
earnest and thorough discussion. This was a necessary part of his design ;
and consequently its execution, though on the whole based on a thoroughly
didactic plan, nevertheless assumed, in the presence of the given points of an-
tagonism, partly an apologetic, partly a polemic form, as the subject required ;
without however any precise necessity to contend against particular doctri-
nal misconceptions among the Romans, against divisions and erroneous views,
such as had appeared, for example, among the Galatians and Corinthians ;
or against a Judaistic leaven brought with them by the Jews and Jewish-
Christians who had returned to Rome (comp. Grau). The actual dangers |
for the moment in the Church were more of a moral than a dogmatic char-
acter—a remark which applies also to the opposition between the Gentile
Christians strong in faith, and the scrupulous Jewish Christians—and have
merely given occasion to some more special notices (xiii. 1 ff. ; xiv. 1 ff.),
and hints (xvi. 1 ff.) in the hortatory portion of the Epistle. The Judaistic
opponents of Pauline Christianity had not yet penetrated as far as Rome, and
were not to arrive there till later (Ep. to the Philippians). It was therefore
an untenable position when even before the time of Baur, who assumed the
object of the Epistle to be the systematic and radical refutation of Jewish
exclusiveness, its aim was very frequently viewed as that of a polemic against
Jewish arrogance, which had been specially aroused on account of the calling
of the Gentiles (Augustine, Theodoret, Melanchthon, Michaelis, Eichhorn,
Schmidt, Flatt, Schott, and others). The same may be said of the hypoth-
esis that Paul wished, in @ conciliatory sense, to obviate minunderstandings
between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Hug). There is no evidence in

1 Against which Hofmann unjustifiably
urges amo μέρους and ws ἐπαναμιμνήσκων
ὑμᾶς ἴῃ xv. 15. See on that passage.

2 So completely, that we can well enough
understand how this Ep. could become the
basis of Melanchthon’s loci communes.

3 Comp. Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. Il. Ὁ.
514 ff. Observe, at the same time, that
though the Epistle deals very much with
legal notions, this does not arise from its
being destined for the Romans to whom

Paul had become a Roman (Grau, 1.6. p:
113), but from the very nature of the Pau-
line Gospel in general, and is therefore
found 6... also in the Epistle to the Gala-
tians.

4 Comp. van Hengel, who assumes that
Paul desired to instruct the Romans how lo
refute the subtleties of the Jews with reference
to the calling of the Gentiles, and to free
them from errors and doubts thence aris+
ing. .

24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

the Epistle of actual circumstances to justify any such special definitions of
its object ; and even from xvi. 20 it cannot be assumed that Judaistic
temptation had already begun (as Grau thinks). The comprehensiveness of
the object of our Epistle—from which, however, neither the combating of
Judaism, which arose naturally and necessarily out of the nature of the
Pauline Gospel, nor (seeing that the futwre coming forward of his opponents
could not be concealed from the Apostle) the prophylactic design of it, may
be excluded—has been justly defended by Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette,
Reiche, Kéllner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Wieseler, Hausrath and others. Comp.
Ewald, p. 317 f. Along withit, however, Th. Schott (comp. also Mangold,
Riggenbach, Sabatier) has assumed a special personally apologetic purpose on
the part of the Apostle ;! namely that, being now on the point of proceed-
ing with his Gentile mission-work in the far West, Paul wished to gain for
his new labours a fixed point of support in the Roman church,’ and on this
account wished to instruct the Romans as to the significance and justifica-
tion of the step, and to inspire them with full confidence regarding it, for
which reason he exhibits to them in detail the nature and principles of
his work. Against this view it may be urged, in general, that Paul no-
where gives expression to this special purpose, though the announcement of
it would have been of decided importance, both for his own official interests
and for the information of the Roman church (they could not read it
between the lines either in the preface, vv. 1-15, or in the conclusion, xv.
14-44) ; and in particular, that the Apostle’s intention of visiting the
Romans only in passing through, without making a lengthened sojourn, is in-
compatible with the assumed purpose which he is alleged to have formed
regarding the church. Moreover, a justification on so great a scale of the
Gentile mission would presuppose not a Gentile-Christian, but a Jewish-
Christian, church and its requirements. Hence Mangold, holding the same
view that the Epistle contains a justification of the Gentile apostleship, has
the advantage of consistency in his favour ; his theory is nevertheless based
on the unsatisfactory ground adopted by Baur, namely, that the Church was
Jewish-Christian. See, further, Beyschlag, 1.6, p, 686 ff., and especially
Dietzsch, Adam. u. Christus, p. 14 ff.

1 Hofmann also makes the object of the
Apostle personal. Paul assumes it to be
a matter of surprise in Rome that he, the
Apostle of the Gentiles, should have hither-
to always kept aloof from the world’s
capital, and even now had not come to it.
It might seem as if the church, that had
arisen without his aid, had no interest for
him; or as if he were afraid to proclaim
the message of salvation in the great
eentre of Gentile culture. This twofold
erroneous notion he was especially desirous
to refute. Asa proof how far he was from
being thus afraid, he sets forth what in
his view the message of salvation was, etc.,
etc. Thus he might hope that the church

in the metropolis of the world would be
just as steady a point of support for his
ministry in the farthest West, as if it had
been founded by himself. In this way,
however, assumptions and objects are as-
signed to the Epistle which are not ex-
pressed in it, but are imputed to it on the
ground of subordinate expressions, as will
be shown in the exposition.

2 Compare also Sabatier, 2’apétre Paul, p.
160 f., who at the same time affirms of the
“στα Πα missionaire :” dont ambition était
aussi vaste que le monde. According to
Sabatier, Paul gives down to chap. Vili.
the defence of his doctrine, and in chaps.
ix.-xi. that of his apostleshap.

OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. ra)

As to contents, our Epistle, after the salutation and introduction (i. 1-15),
falls into two main portions, a theoretical and a hortatory, after which
follows the conclusion (xv. 14—-xvi. 27). The theoretic portion (i. 16—xi. 36)
bears its theme at the outset, i. 16, 17: “ Righteousness before God, for
Jews and Gentiles, comes from faith.” Thereupon is established, in the
first place, the necessity of this plan of salvation, as that which the whole
human race required, Gentiles and Jews alike, because the latter also, even
according to their own law, are guilty before God, and cannot attain to
righteousness (i. 17-ili. 20). The nature of this plan of salvation is then
made clear, namely, that righteousness really and only comes from faith ;
which is especially obvious from the justification of Abraham (111. 21—iv. 25).
The blessed results of this plan of salvation are, partly the blissful inward
condition of the justified before God (vy. 1-11); partly that justification
through Christ is just as universally effective, as Adam’s fall was once uni-
versally destructive (v. 12-21) ; and partly that true morality is not only not
endangered by the manifestation of grace in Christ, but is promoted and
quickened by it (chap. vi.), and made free from the fetters of the law (vii.
1-6). This last assertion demanded a defence of the law, as that which is
in itself good and holy, but was abused by the sinful principle in man,
against his own better will, to his destruction (vii. 17-25)—a sad variance
of man with himself, which could not be removed through the law, but only
through Christ, whose Spirit produces in us the freedom of the new divine
life, the consciousness of adoption, and assurance of future glory (ch. viii.).
From the lofty description of this blessed connection with Christ, Paul now
suddenly passes to the saddening thought that a great part of that very
Jewish people, so signally favoured of God, has rejected the plan of redemp-
tion ; and therefore he develops at length a Theodicy with regard to the
exclusion, apparently irreconcilable with the divine promises, of so many
members of the theocracy from the attainment of salvation in Christ (chs.
ix.-xi.). The hortatory portion (chs. xii.-xv. 13) gives the essentials of the
Pauline ethical system, partly in the form of general exhortations (xii.
1-21; xiii. 8-14), and partly in some special discussions which were
deemed necessary in the circumstances of the Romans (xiii. 1-7, xiv. 1—xv.
13). The conclusion comprises in the first place—corresponding to the in-
troduction (i. 8-15)—personal explanations with regard to the Apostle’s in-
tended journey by way of Rome to Spain (xv. 14-33) ; then the recom-
mendation of Phoebe (xvi. 1 ff.) and salutations (xvi. 3-16) ; a warning with
a closing wish (xvi. 17-20) ; some supplementary salutations with a second
closing wish (xvi. 21-24) ; and finally, a concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27).

“ This Epistle is the true masterpiece of the N. T., and the very purest
Gospel, which is well worthy and deserving that a Christian man should not
only learn it by heart, word for word, but also that he should daily deal with i
as with the daily bread of men’s souls, For it can never be too much or too welt
read or studied ; and the more it is handled the more precious it becomes and
the better it tastes,”—Luther, Preface.

20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS.

ὃ 4, PLAcE AND TIME OF CoMPOSITION.—GENUINENESS OF' THE EPISTLE.

Since the Apostle, when he composed his letter, was on the point of con-
veying to Jerusalem the proceeds of a collection made in Macedonia and
Achaia (xv. 25-27), and intended to journey thence by way of Rome
to Spain (xv. 28, comp. Acts xix. 21), we are thus directed to his last
sojourn—of three months—in Achaia, Acts xx. 3. His purpose was to
cross over directly from Achaia to Syria in order to reach Jerusalem,
but he was led, owing to Jewish plots, to take quite a different route,
namely, back through Macedonia (Acts xx. 3). This change in the plan of
his journey had not been made when he wrote his Epistle ; otherwise he
would not have failed to mention in ch. xv.—where he had at vv. 25 and 31
very immediate inducement to do so—a circumstance so remarkable on ac-
count of its novelty and importance. We justly infer therefore—even apart
from the fact that the composition of swch an epistle presupposes a some-
what lengthened and quiet abode—that it was written before Paul again de-
parted from Achaia. Although Luke mentions no particular city as the
scene of the Apostle’s three months’ residence at that time, still it is, ὦ
priori, probable that he spent at least the greater part of the time in
Corinth. For Corinth was the principal church of the country, and was in
the eyes of the Apostle pre-eminently important and precious on account of
his earlier labours there. But our attention is also directed to Corinth by
the passages 1 Cor. xvi. 1-7, 2 Cor. ix. 4, xii. 20-xili. 3, from which it is
plain that, on his journey down from Macedonia to Achaia, Paul had
chosen that city as the place of his sojourn, where he wished to complete
the business of the collection, and from which he would convey the money
to Jerusalem. Now, since the recommendation of the deaconess Phoebe
from the Corinthian seaport Cenchreae (xvi. 1, 2), as well as the salutation
from his host Gaius (xvi. 28, comp. with 1 Cor. i. 14), point to no other
city than Corinth, we may, beyond all doubt, abide by it as the place of
writing, and not with Dr. Paulus (de orig. ep. P. ad Rom. paralip. Jen.
1801, and Rémerbrief, p. 231), on account of xv. 19 (see on that passage) put
forward a claim on behalf of a town in Illyria. Theodoret has admirably
proved in detail its composition at Corinth.

The time of composition accordingly falls in a.p, 59, when Paul regarded
his ministry in the East as closed, and (see xv. 19, 23) saw a new and vast
scene of action opened up to him in the West, of which Rome should be the
centre and Spain the goal.

The genuineness is decisively attested by the testimonies of the orthodox
church (the first express and special quotations from it are found in Irenaeus,
Haer. iii. 16, 3, 9, while previously there are more or less certain echoes of
its language or traces of its use),! as well as of the Gnostics Basilides, Val-
entinus, Heracleon, Epiphanes, and Theodotus ; and there is not a single

1 Clem. Cor. i. 385; Polyearp, ad Phil. 6; Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Euseb.
Theoph. ad Autol. i. 20, iii. 14; letter of the Vays

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. Ale

trace that even the Judaizing heretics, who rejected the authority of the
Apostle, at all rejected the Pauline authorship of our Epistle. In order to
warrant any doubt or denial of its authenticity, therefore, the most cogent
internal grounds would need to be adduced ; and in the utter absence of
any such grounds, the worthless scruples of Evanson (Dissonance of the four
generally received Evangelists, 1792, p. 259 ff.) and the frivolities of Bruno
Bauer could find no supporters. The Epistle bears throughout the lively
original impress of the Apostle’s mind, and his characteristic qualities, in its
matter and its form ; is the chief record of Ais Gospel in its entire connec-
tion and antagonism ; and is therefore also the richest original-apostolic
charter and model of all true evangelical Protestantism. The opinion of
Weisse (philosoph. Dogm. I. p. 146), which ultimately amounts to the sug-
gestion of a number of interpolations as interwoven throughout the Epistle
(see his Beitr. 2. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 28 ff.), rests simply
on a subjective criticism of style, which has discarded all weight of external
evidence.

The originality of the Epistle extends also to its language, the Greck, in
which Paul dictated it to Tertius." The note of the Syrian Scholiast on the
Peshito, that Paul wrote his letter in Zatin—a theory maintained also, but
for a polemical purpose, by Hardouin, Salmeron, Bellarmine, Corn. ἃ Lapide,
and others—is based merely upon a hasty inference from the native language
of the readers. Its composition in Greek however corresponds fully, not
only with the Hellenic culture of the Apostle himself, but also with the
linguistic circumstances of Rome (see Credner’s Hin/. I. p. 383 f.; Bern-
hardy, Griech. Literat. ed. 2, p. 483 ff.), and with the analogy of the rest of
the ancient Christian writings addressed to Rome (Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus,
et al.).

That the two last chapters are genuine and inseparable parts of the Epistle,
see in the critical remarks on ch, xv.

1 The reason why Paul himself did not in his apostolic position. In this, when he
usually write his Epistles is to be sought, had to enter on written communication,
not in a want of practice in the writing of instead of the oral preaching for which he
Greek—which is a supposition hardly rec- was called, friendly and subordinate hands
oncilable with his Hellenic culture—but were at his service. Comp. on Gal. vi. 11.

28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους.

The simplest and most ancient superscription is ; πρὸς ἹΡωμαίους, in ABC δ,

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 1. Ἰησοῦ X.] Tisch., following B, reads Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ against decisive
testimony.—In ver. 7 ἐν ‘Poy, and in ver. 15 τοῖς ἐν Ρώμῃ, are wanting in G.
Born; and on ver. 7 the scholiast of cod. 47 remarks: τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ovre ἐν τῇ
ἐξηγήσει, οὔτε Ev τῷ ῥητῷ μνημονευει (Who? probably the codex, which lay before
the copyist). This quite isolated omission is of no critical weight ; and is in
no case to be explained by the very unnatural conjecture (of Reiche) that Paul
in several Epistles (especially in that to the Ephesians) addressed the readers
simply as Christians, and that then the place of residence was inserted by the
copyists in accordance with the context or with tradition. In ver. 7 the omis-
sion might be explained by the reading ἐν ἀγάπῃ which G and a few other
authorities give instead of ἀγαπητοῖς ; but, since τοῖς ἐν ‘P. is wanting in ver. 15
also, another unknown reason must have existed for this. Perhaps some
church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public read-
ing, may have, for their own particular church-use, deleted the extraneous desig-
nation of place, and thus individual codices may have passed into circulation
without it. Riickert’s conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies
without the local address to be sent to other churches, assumes a mechanical
arrangement in apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and
which seems even opposed by Col. iv. 16. — Ver. 8. ὑπέρ] A BC D* K, δὲ, min.,
Dam, read περί, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have
adopted : justly, on account of the preponderant attestation, since both prep-
ositions, though ὑπέρ less frequently (Eph. i. 16; Phil.i. 4), were used for the
expression of the thought (in opposition to Fritzsche). — Ver. 13. The less
usual position τινὰ καρπόν (Elz. κ. τ.) is established by decisive testimony ;
as also ὁ Θεὸς γάρ (Elz. ὁ. y. 0.) in ver. 19; and δὲ καί (Elz. τὲ καὶ) in ver, 27,
although not on equally strong authority.—Instead of οὐ θέλω in ver. 13, D* E
G, It. and Ambrosiaster read οὐκ οἴομαι. Defended by Rinck. But the very
assurance already expressed in vv. 10, 11 might easily cause the οὐ θέλω to seem
unsuitable here, if due account was not taken of the new element in the prog-
ress of the discourse contained in rpoeféunv.—After εὐαγγ. in ver. 16 τοῦ Χρισ.
τοῦ (Elz.) is omitted on decisive authority ; πρῶτον, however, which Lachmann
has bracketed, ought not to be rejected on the inadequate adverse testimony of
BG, Tert. as it might seem objectionable along with πιστεύοντι (not so in 11. 9
f.).— Ver. 24. The καί is indeed wanting after διό in A BC δὲ, min., Vulg. Or.
al. ; but it was very easily passed over as superfluous ; comp. ver. 26; ii. 1.
Nevertheless Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have deleted it. — ἐν ἑαυτοῖς Lachm., and
Tisch. read ἐν αὐτοῖς following ABC D* &, min. But how frequently was

CHAP a. re

the reflexive form neglected by the copyists. It occurred also in ver. 27 (B K).
— Ver. 27. appevec] B D* G, 73, Or. Eus. Oee. read ἄρσενες. Adopted by
Lachm. Fritzsche and Tisch. (7). Since two different forms cannot be sup-
poses to have been used in the same verse, and in that which follows ἄρσενες
ἐν ἄρσεσι 15 undoubtedly the true reading (only A* δὲ, min., and some Fathers
reading uniformly dp. ἐν ἀῤῥ.), we must here adopt the fore dpoerec almost
invariably used in the N. T. (only the Apocal. has 4(/.).— Ver. 29. πορνείᾳ]
wanting after ἀδικ. in A BC K Νὰ, min., and several vss. and Fathers.
Deleted by Lachm. Fritzsche, and Tisch., and rightly so ; it is an interpolation
introduced by those who did not perceive that the naming of this vice was not
again appropriate here. It was writtenin the margin, and introduced at dif-
ferent places (for we find it after πονηρίᾳ also, and even after κακίᾳ), so that it
in some instances even supplanted zornpia.—The placing of κακίᾳ immediately
after ἀδικίᾳ (Lachm. on weak authority), or according to A δὲ, Syr., after πονηρίᾳ,
(Tisch. 8), is explained by the aggregation of terms of a similar kind.—Ver. 31.
After ἀστόργους Elz. and Scholz read ἀσπόνδους, which Mill condemned, and
*Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted. It is wanting in A Β D* E G and &*,
Copt. Clar. Germ. Boern. and several Fathers. It is found before ἀστόργ. in
17, 76, Theophyl. Taken from 2 Tim, iii. 3. — Ver. 32. After ἐπιγνόντες, D ΕἸ
Bas. read οὐκ ἐνόησαν, and G, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν. That death isthe wages of sin—this
Christian doctrinal proposition seemed not at all to correspond with the natural
knowledge of the Gentiles.—Instead of αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ Kai συνευδοκοῦσι B
reads αὐτὰ ποιοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦντες ; so Lachm. in margin. This
arose from the fact, that εἰσίν was erroneously taken for the chief verb in the
sentence’; or else it was a consequence of the introduction of οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, which
in other witnesses led to the insertion of γάρ or δὲ after ob μόνον.

Vv. 1-7.—The Apostolic salutation.

Ver. 1. Παῦλος] See on Acts xiii. 9. [See Note I. p. 72.1 ---- δοῦλος.
evayy. Θεοῦ is the exhaustive statement of his official dignity, proceeding
from the general to the particular, by which Paul earnestly—as dealing
with the Church of the metropolis of the world, which had as yet no person-
al knowledge of him—opens his Epistle as an official apostolic letter; with-
out, however, having in view therein (as Flatt thinks) opponents and calum-
niators of his apostleship, for of the doings of such persons in Rome the
Epistle itself contains no trace, and, had such existed, he would have set
forth his dignity, not only positively, but also at the same time negatively
(comp. Gal. i. 1). — In the first place Paul describes by δοῦλος ’I. X. [See
Note II. p. 73.]—his relation of service to Christ, as his Ruler, whose servant
he is, and that in general (comp. on Phil. i. 1), just as the Old Testament
my TAY expresses the relation of service to Jehovah, without marking off
in itself exclusively any definite class, such as the prophetic or the priestly
(see Josh. 1. 1, xiv. 7, xxii. 4; Judg. ii. 8; Ps. cxxxii_10; comp. Acts xvi.
17). This relation of entire dependence (Gal. i. 10; Col. iv. 12) is then
specifically and particularly indicated by κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, and for this reason
the former δοῦλος "I. X. cannot be rendered merely in general Christi cultor
(so Fritzsche), which is inadequate also at 1 Cor. vii. 22; Eph. vi.6. Paul
was called to his office, like all the earlier Apostles; he did not arrive at it

90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

by his own choice or through accidental circumstances. For the history of
this divine calling, accomplished through the exalted Christ Himself, see
Acts ix. (xxii. 26), and the remarks thereon. This κλητός presented itself
so naturally to the Apostle as an essential element *in the full description
of his official position which he meant to give (comp. 1 Cor. i. 1), that the
supposition of a side-glance at uncalled teachers (Cameron, Gléckler) seems
very arbitrary. — ἀφωρισμένος εἰς ebayy. Θεοῦ] characterizes the κλητὸς ἀπόστολος
more precisely: set apart (definitely separated from the rest of mankind) for
Gods message of salvation, to be its preacher and minister (see on Eph. iii.
7). The article before evayy. elsewhere invariably given in the N. T., is
omitted here, because Paul views the message of God, of which he desires
to speak, primarily under its qualitative aspect (comp. also van Hengel and
Hofmann). Concrete definiteness is only added to it gradually by the
further clauses delineating its character. This mode of expression implies
a certain festal tone, in harmony with the whole solemn character of the
pregnant opening of the Epistle: for a@ gospel of God, which He promised
before, ete. Still we are not to understand, with Th. Schott, a work of
proclamation, since εὐαγγ. is not the work of conveying a message, but the
message itself. Θεοῦ is the genitive subjecti (auctoris), ver. 2, not objects
(Chrysostom). See on Marki. 1. It is God who causes the message of
salvation here referred to, which is His λόγος (Acts x. 36), to be proclaimed ;
comp. xv. 16; 2'Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. il. 2, 8, 9; 1 Pet. iv. 17. The desig-
nation of Apostle to the Gentiles is involved in ἀφωρ. εἰς eb. O. though not
expressed (against Beza and others). Further, since ἀφωρ. is parallel with
the previous κλητός, it is neither to be explained, with Toletus and others,
including Olshausen, by Acts xiii. 2, nor with Reiche, Ewald, and van Hen-
gel (following Chrysostom and others) by Gal. i. 15, comp. Jer. 1. 5; but
rather by Acts ix. 15 (σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς), comp. xxvi. 16 ff. The setting apart
took place as a historical fact in and with his calling at Damascus. Entire-
ly different is the mode of presenting the matter in Gal. i. 15, where ἀφορίσας
μὲ ἐκ κοιλ. μητρ. as the act of predestination in the counsel of God, is placed
before the καλέσας, as the historically accomplished fact. The view of Dru-
sius (de sectis, 11. 2, 6) and Schoettgen (comp. Erasmus and Beza), which
Dr. Paulus has again adopted, viz. that Paul, in using the word ἀφωρ.;, al-
ludes to his former Pharisaism (‘‘the true Pharisee in the best sense of the
word”), is based on the Peshito translation (see Grotius), but is to be re-
jected, because the context gives no hint of so peculiar a reference, for
which also no parallel can be found in Paul’s other writings.

Ver. 2. A more precise description of the character of this εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ,
according to its concrete peculiarity, as far as ver. 5 inclusive, advancing
and rising to a climax under the urgent sense of the sacredness of his office,
which the Apostle has frankly to assert and to establish before the church of
the metropolis of the world, personally as yet unknown to him. — ὃ προεπηγγεί-
λατο «.7.A.| How natural that the Apostle with his Old Testament training
should, in the light of the New Testament revelation which he had re-

1 See Weiss in the Jahrd. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 97 ff.

CHAP. τὶ, Ὁ: 4 Bal

ceived, first of all glance back at the connection divinely established in the
history of salvation between the gospel which he served and ancient proph-
ecy, and should see therein the sacredness of the precious gift entrusted |
to him ! To introduce the idea of an antithetic design (‘‘ ut invidiam novi-
tatis depelleret,” Pareus, Estius, Grotius and others, following Chrysostom
and Theophylact) is quite arbitrary, looking to the general tenor of vv. 1-7.
The news of salvation God has previously promised (προεπηγγείλατο, 2 Cor.
ix. 5; Dio Cass. xlii. 32) through His prophets, not merely in so far as these, ,
acting as the organs of God (αὐτοῦ), foretold the Messianic age, with the
dawn of which the εὐαγγέλιον, as the ‘‘publicum de Christo exhibito prae-
conium” (Calovius), would necessarily begin, but they foretold also this
praeconium itself, its future proclamation. See x. 18, xv. 21; Isa. xl. 1 ff.,
xlii. 4, lit. 1 ff.; Zeph. iii. 9; Ps. xix. 5, Ixviii. 12; Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It
is the less necessary therefore to refer 6, with Philippi and Mehring, to the
contents of the gospel. —rav προφητῶν] is not to be limited, so as either to in-
clude merely the prophets proper in the narrower sense of the word, or to
go back—according to Acts iii. 24, comp. xiii. 20—only as far as Samuel.
The following ἐν γραφαῖς dy. suggests, on the contrary, a reference to all
who in the O. T. have prophesied the gospel (even Moses, David and others
not excluded); comp. Heb. 1. 1. — ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαισ] Not : in the holy Script-
ures (80 most expositors, even Fritzsche), in which case the article must
have been used; but qualitatively: in holy writings. The divine promises
of the gospel, given through the prophets of God, are found in such books
as, being God’s records for His revelations, are holy writings. Such are
the prophetic writings of the O. T.; thus designated so as to lay stress on
their qualitative character. Ina corresponding manner is the anarthrous
γραφῶν προφητικῶν to be understood in xvi. 26.

Vv. 3, 4.1 We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view
which treats τοῦ γενομένου. . . . νεκρῶν, and vv. 5, 6, as parentheses, be-
cause we have to deal with intervening clauses which accord with the
construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526
[E.T. 565]. — περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] [See Note III. p. 73.] ‘‘ Hoc refertur ad illud
quod praecessit εὐαγγέλιον ; explicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona
nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel,
Flatt, Reiche, Kéllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit, Th.
Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the
one hand, that περί is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable
word that precedes it ; and on the other that evayy., frequently as it is used
with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with περί in the N. T.;2 and
still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in
ver, 2 appears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of περί with
ὃ xpoernyy., is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Riickert, Fritzsche,

1 Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. would have only needed to repeat the eis
1871, p. 502 ff. εὐαγγέλιον With rhetorical emphasis, in order
3 Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul then to add the object in the genitive (τοῦ
could not have added the object of his di- υἱοῦ a.), Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. Ὁ. ᾿
Vine message otherwise than by wept. He 315.

32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following
Theodoret ; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine
previous promise of the gospel referred ; consequently, the person concerning
whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we
may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previously promised
the gospel in any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who
was to come and to be revealed ; otherwise his προεπαγγέλλεσθαι εὐαγγέλιον
would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object. — τοῦ
γενομένου down to νεκρῶν describes under a twofold aspect (κατά) the evalted
dignity of Him who had just been designated by τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ : (1) κατὰ
σάρκα, He entered life as David’s descendant ; (2) κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγίωσ., He was
powerfully instated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ, in the words περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (not αὑτοῦ), is not by any means
to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah
(Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp. also Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr.
p. 424 ; and Pfleiderer, /.c.), because this is opposed to the constant usage
of the Apostle, who never designates Christ as υἱὸς Θεοῦ otherwise ὁ than
from the standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by rev-
elation (Gal. 1. 16) of the metaphysical Sonship (viii. 3, 32 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Col.
i. 13 ff.; Phil. 11. 6 ff. a/:) ; and the hypothesis of a modification having
taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Ké6llner ; see, on the other hand,
Rickert) is purely fanciful. Here also the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is conceived in the
metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father,
like Him in substance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is
the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accom-
plishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was necessary for this
accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,—
and these essential modal definitions are now added to the υἱοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ---
as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born κατὰ σάρκα, and indeed of the seed of
David,’ and yet (2) to be actually instated κατὰ πνεῦμα, as that which,
although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other
men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These
two parallel clauses are placed in asyndetic juxtaposition, whereby the
second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Mes-
sianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance.* Not per-
ceiving this, Hofmann fails to recognize the contrast here presented between
the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used κατὰ πνεῦμα δὲ
ὁρισθέντος in the second clause. — κατὰ σάρκα] in respect of flesh ; for the Son
of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifesta-
tion was that of a materially human person. Comp. ix. 5 ; 1 Tim. ii. 46 ;

iPet iy 18 se hi, τι Roms sy. δ; Cor πο ἢ iar δ. Το

1 Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff.; the two main epochs in the history of the

Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 309. Son of God, as they actually occurred and
2 But at the same time the idea of ‘‘ an ac- had been already prophetically announced.
commodation to the Jewish-Christian mode 3 See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. ad Pind.

of conception ” (Holsten, z. Hv. Paul. u. Petr. Exe, I., de Asynd., p. 275.
p. 427), is not to be entertained. Paul giyes

CHAP: T., 35.4: 99

the σάρξ belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the ψυχή
as the principle of the animal life of man ; but this sensuous side of His
nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not
σαρκικός (vii. 14), and ψυχικός (1 Cor, 11. 14), in the ethical sense, like all
ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was( capable
-of-being |} tempted (Heb. ii. 18 ; iv. 15). Although in this way His body
was ἃ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός (Col. i. 22), yet He did not appear ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτίας,
but ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. vill. 2). “Withreference to His fleshly
nature, therefore, 7.6. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon,
He was born (γενομένου, comp. Gal. iv. 4), of the seed (as descendant) of
David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the
promised Messiah (6 πὸ χα 6 5! Ps: exxxa. 110+ Matt’ xxi. 42) John
vii. 42 ; Acts xili. 23 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8). In this expression the ἐκ σπέρματος
Δαυΐδ is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David
(comp. Acts ii. 30, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος), as even the genealogical tables in
Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of
Mary ;* and Jesus Himself, in John v. 27 (see on that passage), calls Him-
self in contradistinction to His Sonship ef God, son of a mai, in which case
the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood.
It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer ἐκ σπ. Δαν. to Mary (‘‘ex
semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melanchthon ; comp. also Philippi),
especially since Paul nowhere (not even in viii. 3, Gal. iv. 4) indicates the
view of a supernatural generation of the bodily nature of Jesus,” even apart
from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no
means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjustifiable, to pro-
nounce the metaphysical divine Sonship without virgin birth as something
inconceivable * (Philippi). —There now follows the other, second mode in
which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz.

1 Τὴ opposition to Hofmann, (Weissaq. w.
Erfill. ΤΙ. p.49 (comp. the Erlangen Zeiischr.
1868, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the
sense of the words in such a way as to con-
vey the meaning that Christ appeared as
one belonging to the collective body which
traces its descent back to David. But in fact
it is simply said that Christ was Born of the
seed of David. The reading γεννωμένον (in
min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a
correct gloss; and Hofmann himself grants
(heil. Schrift N. T., in loc.) that γίγνεσθαι ἐκ
here signifies descent by virth. And even
if γενομένου be taken as meaning: who ap-
peared, who came (comp. on Mark i. 4; Phil.
ii. 7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to
the σπέρμα of David remains the same. He
camé κατὰ σάρκα of the seed of David, and
that in no other way than through His birth.
This remark holds good also against other
obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts
in his Schriftzew. 11. 1, Ὁ. 113; in his hei.
Schr. N. T. he adheres substantially to his

earlier view (‘‘ come of the race which called
itself after David, because tracing its descent
to his ancestry”). No, the σπέρμα of David
is nothing else than his semen virile, out (ex)
of which, transmitted (comp, ἀπό, Acts xiii.
23) through the male line from yevea to yevea
(Matt. i. 6 ff.), at length the Son of God
κατὰ capka—Christ, the David’s son of prom-
ise—was born. See besides, against Hof-
mann, Rich. Schmidt, 7.c.—Because Christ
was ἐκ σπέρματος of David, He might also
Himself be called σπέρμα of David, in the
same way as He is called in Gal. iii. 16
σπέρμα “ABpadu ; and He is so called Matt.
j.1. Comp. further on ἐκ σπέρματος, in the
sense of fatherhood, Soph. 0. C. 214: τίνος
εἶ σπέρματος... πατρόθεν.

3 Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 328 ; Rich. Schmidt,
Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff. ; Pfleiderer, /.c.

3 This opinion rests on a premiss assumed
ἃ priori, on an abstract postulate, the pro-
priety of which it is impossible to prove.
Comp. on Matt. i, 18, ποία.

84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

with reference to the spirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism
between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ay., apparent even in the position of the
two elements, forbids us to understand κατὰ πν. dywo. as denoting the pre-
supposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to
the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another
preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps διά with the accusative
(comp. the διό, Phil. 11. 9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann
has discovered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His
life, «was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding
the view taken of ἐν δυνάμει in connection with this, see the sequel. ‘Ayiw-
σύνη, in Paul’s writings as well as in the Sept. (in Greek authors and in the
other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means foliness
(2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Ps. χουν 6, xevii. 12, exliv. 5), not sanctiji-
cation (as rendered by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others,
including Gléckler and Schrader). So also in 2 Mace. iii. 12. The genitive
is the gen. qualitatis,’ and contains the specific character of the πνεῦμα. This
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσ. 18, In contradistinction to the σάρξ, the other side of the being
of the Son of God on earth ; and, just as the σάρξ was the outward element
perceptible by the senses, so is the πνεῦμα the inward mental element, the
substratum of His νοῦς (1 Cor. ii. 16), the principle and the power of His
INNER life, the intellectual and moral ‘‘ Ego” which receives the communi-
cation of the divine—in short, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of Christ. His πνεῦμα also
was human (Matt. xxvii. 50 ; John xi. 33, xix, 30)—altogether He was an
entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T.
teaching—but it was the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person ;
not excluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol.
pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical υἱότης
Θεοῦ, or—according to the Johannine type of doctrine—the seat and the
organ of the Adyoc, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as
also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (John iii. 34 ;
Acts 1. 23; 2 Cor. iii. 17). Consequently the πνεῦμα of Christ, although
human (comp. Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits,
because essentially filled with God, and thereby holy, sinless, and full of
divine unpolluted life, as was no other human πνεῦμα ; and for this reason
His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation πνεῦμα
ἁγιωσύνης, t.e. spirit full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression,
which is not to be abated to the stwdium sanctitatis (van Hengel), must,
seeing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ,
absolutely preclude our understanding it to refer to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον," the
third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1 Tim. iii.
16, or in Heb. ix. 14. Nevertheless, the majority of commentators, since
Chrysostom, have so explained it ; some of them taking it to mean :
“secundum Sp. S. ei divinitus concessum” (Fritzsche ; comp. Beza, Calixtus,

1 Hermann, ad Viger, pp. 887, 891 ; Ktihner, 588, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, in so far as it produces
Tale 90. holiness.
2 This is called in the Zest. ΧΙ]. Patr. p. 3

~
r
€

9

CHAP. I., 3, 4.

Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck, and others),' some referring it to the miraculous
working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret) or to the bestowal of the Spirit which
took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther,
Estius, Béhme, and others). Since the contrast between σάρξ and πνεῦμα
is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the
bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the
interpretation which refers the words to the divine natwre (Melanchthon,
Calovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take ἁγιωσύνη,
as equivalent to θεότης (Winzer) ; others adduce in explanation of πνεῦμα
the here irrelevant πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, John iv. 24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshav-
sen, Maier, Philippi); others take the expression as substantially equiv-
alent to the Johannine λόγος (Riickert, comp. Reiche, ‘‘the principle of
His higher essence’), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian con-
ception. The correct interpretation is substantially given by Kéllner, de
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 93), and
Mehring. Comp. Hofmann (‘‘spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a con-
dition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. wu. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49,
who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also in-
cluded.* — ὁρισθέντος] The translation of the Vulgate, gui praedestinatus est,
based on the too weakly attested reading προορισθέντος (a mistaken gloss),
drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are
now properly forgotten. Ὁρίζειν, however, with the double accusative, ,
means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Acts x. 42 ;
comp. Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7: σὲ θεὸν ὥρισε δαίμων), nor is the
meaning different here.* For although Christ was already the Son of God
before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4),
nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive,
after the humiliation that began with His birth (Phil. ii. 7 f.), instating into
the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship ; whereby also, as its necessary ,
consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was
legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement
was the resurrection, as the transition to His δόξα ; comp. on Acts xiii. 33 ;
and ἐποίησε in Acts ii. 86. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence
with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος,
κριθέντος ; and that of Luther: ‘‘shewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is errone-

1 Comp. also Zeller in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1842,
p. 486. In his view (2 Cor. iii. 17), the πνεῦμα
is the element of which the higher person-
ality of Christ consists. According to Baur,
Paulus 11. Ὁ. 375, it is the Messianic spirit,
the intrinsic principle constituting the me

siahship of Christ. According to Holsten, 2s.

Ev. ἃ. Paul. u. Petr. Ὁ. 425, it is in itself a
transcendent pneumatic force, which produces
the ἁγιωσύνη, a radiance of the divine πνεῦμα
ἅγιον.

2 A more accurate and precise definition
of the idea may be found in Weiss, did.
Theol. p. 313; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 105f. ;

Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p.
169, 503 f.

3 But not in the sense: destined to become
something, as Hofmann thinks: nor gener-
ally, in the sense: qui destinatus est, but
rather: qui constitutus est (was instated).
For otherwise the aorist participle would be
unsuitable, since it must necessarily indi-
eate an act following the γενομένου, ete. ;
whereas the divine destination would be
prior to the birth. Consequently, were that
sense intended, it must have been, as in
Acts x. 42, ὡρισμένου.

Oe THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ous: ‘‘ separated,” namely from all men. — ἐν δυνάμει] Not : through omnip-
otence (Umbreit), but : mightily (Luther), forcibly ; for this installation of
the Son of God as Son of God was ὦ work of divine power, which (see what
follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead.
Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the char-
acteristic quality in which the ὁρισμός took place. On ἕν, as paraphrase of
the adverb (Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. ἐν δὺν. is
not, with Melanchthon, Schoettgen, Pareus, Sebastian Schmid, and others,
including Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Holsten, Hof-
mann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (as the mightily powerful
Son of God) ; for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special pred-
icate of the Son of God,! but, in contradistinction to the ἐκ σπερμ. Aav. κατὰ
σάρκα, upon the divine Sonship in itself ; of which Sonship He was indeed the
hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with
glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, ἐν δυνάμει, even
when rightly connected with ὁρισθ., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophy-
lact, to be taken as ‘‘per virtutem, i.e. per signa et prodigia” (Calovius,
comp. Grotius) ; nor with Fritzsche: οὐ οἱ daté; for Paul himself defines
the how of the mighty ὁρισμός by : ἐξ ἀναστ. νεκρῶν. This, namely, was the
causal fact, by virtue of which that ὁρισμός was accomplished ; for by the res-
urrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4), accom-
plished in point of fact His instating declaration : Thou art my Son, this day,
ete., Acts xiii. 33. Paul might accordingly have written διά, but ἐκ is more
expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On
ἐκ, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281 [E. T. 3827] ;
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 550 ἢ. The temporal explanation, since or after
(Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmapyr ;
comp. Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring) is to be rejected, because the raising up
of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through
the majesty of the Father (vi. 4), powerfully instated the Son, in the Son’s
position and dignities ; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preach-
ing, Acts i. 22, ii. 24 ff., xiii. 30, xvii. 31 f., xxvi. 23 ; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Cor.
xv. 3 ff. Weare not to take the expression ἐξ avaor. vexp., a8 is often done,
for ἐξ avaor. ἐκ vexp., the second ἐκ being omitted for the sake of euphony :
but it must be viewed as a general designation of the category (νεκρῶν, see on
Matt. 11. 20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the personal

rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point.

1 As if only a change of His attributes was
concerned, or the transition into the full
reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer).
The question concerned the installation of
the Son of God as such, as it were His en-
thronization, which had not taken place
previously, but was accomplished by the
resurrection with a mighty power. By
means of the latter He received—as the Son
of God, which from the beginning and even
in the days of His flesh He really was—a de

Comp. xvii. 32.

Facto instatement, which accomplished
itself in a way divinely powerful. What
accrued to Him thereby, was not the full
reality (see viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4), but the fuil
efficiency of the Son of God; because He
was now exalted above all the limitations
of the state of His κένωσις (Phil. ii.; 2 Cor.
viii. 9); comp. 6.5. Vi. 9; xi. 33 f.; v. 10; 2
Cor--xiii. 4; and numerous other passages.
The Son was now the κύριος πάντων, had the
name above every name, etc., etc.

᾿ CHAP. ΤΣ, (Os ὃ.
So, also, de Wette, Hofmann ; comp. Philippi, who however, following
Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that
our resurrection is involved in that of Christ. — The following ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ
is in apposition to τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in v. 3 ; not necessary in itself, but in keep-
ing with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the
Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in vv. 3, 4. — Ob-
serve, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ
in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office.
Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ
there is not a trace in the whole Epistle.’

Ver. 5. To the general τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, which designates Christ as the |
Lord of Christians in general, Paul now adds the special relation in which
he himself stands to this common κύριος. He entertained too lively a con-
sciousness of the bliss and dignity of that relationship, not to set it forth
once more (comp. ver. 1) in this overflowing salutation ; this time, however,
with closer reference to the readers, in accordance with his definite character
as Apostle of the Gentiles.-— Vv. 5, 6 are not to be enclosed in a paren-
thesis ; and only a comma should be placed after ver. 6. — δέ οὐ] through
whom, denotes nothing else than the medium ; nowhere, not even in Gal. i.
1, the causa principalis. The view of the Te occe is, as Origen rightly per-
poe that he had received grace and apostleship through the mediation
of Christ, through whom God called him at Damascus. Regarding Gal. i.
1, see on that passage. — ἐλάβομεν] He means himself alone, especially since ©
in the address he specifies no joint author of the letter ; not however—as
Reiche, following Estius and many others, aa el at the plural out of
modesty (in the solemnity of an official epistolary greeting ?), but rather
(comp. iii. 9) in accordance with the custom, very common among Greek
authors, of speaking of themselves in the plural of category (Kriiger, § 61,
a: Kuliner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 46). This is, no doubt, to be fered pee
to the conception ‘‘T and my equals ;” but this original conception was in
course of use entirely lost. The opinion, therefore, that Paul here includes
along with himself the other apostles (Bengel, van Hengel) is to be all the
more rejected as unsuitable, since the subsequent ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν points
to Paul himself alone as the Apostle of the Gentiles. To understand Paul’s
official assistants as included (Hofmann) is forbidden by the subsequent
ἀποστολήν, Which does not mean mission in general, but, as invariably in the
N. T., specially apostleship. — χάριν x. ἀποστολὴν] grace (generally) and (in
ΕΠ ἢ apostleship. [866 Νοίο ΤΥ. p. 74.1] Χάρων is to be understood, not
merely of pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Tholuck,
Olshausen, and others), or of the extraordinary apostolic gifts of grace (Theo-
doret, Luther, and others, including Flatt and Mehring) ; for such special
references must be demanded by the context ; but on the contrary gener-
ally of the entire divine grace, of which Paul was made partaker through
Christ, when he was arrested by Him at Damascus in his career which was
hateful to God (Phil. iii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv, 10), converted, enlightened (Gal. i.

1 Comp. Gess, von d. Pers. Chr. Ὁ. 56.

98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

16), and transferred into the communion of God’s beloved ones and saints.
The special object (Gal. i. 16) and at the same time the highest evidence of
this χάρις which he had received, was his reception of the arocroA#,’ and
that for the Gentile world. Others find here a ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (Chrysostom,
Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Glass, Rich. Simon, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe,
Boéhme, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others : χάριν ἀποστολῆς. This might cer-
tainly be justified in linguistic usage by the explicative καί 37 but it arbitra-
rily converts two elements, which taken separately yield a highly appropri-
ate sense, into one, and fails to recognize—what is involved in the union of
the general and the particular—the fulness and force of the discourse
moving the grateful heart. This remark applies also against Hofmann,
according to whom the Apostle terms one and the same vocation ‘‘a@ grace
and a mission ;” in which view ἀποστ. is erroneously rendered (see above),
and in consequence thereof-eie-trax. π. is then joined merely to χάρ. kK. ἀπι;
and not also to ἐλάβ. --- εἰς ὑπακ. xiot.] Object of the ἐλάβ. χάρ. x. ἀποστ. : in
order that obedience of faith may be produced, i.e. in order that people may sub-
jett-themselves to the faith, in order that they may become believing. [See
Note V. p. 75.] Comp. xvi. 26; Acts vi. 7; 2 Cor. x. 5f. ; 2 Thess. i. 8.
To take πίστις for doctrina jfidei (Beza, Toletus, Estius, Bengel, Heumann,
Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others), is altogether
contrary to the linguistic usage of the N. T., in which πίστις is always swb-
jective faith, although often, as in the present instance, conceived of object-
ively as a power. Comp. xvi. 26; Gal. i. 23. The activity of faith in
producing works (Reithmayr), however, is not contained in the expression.
The πίστις is, according to Paul, the conviction and confidence (assensus and
Jfiducia) regarding Jesus Christ, as the only and perfect Mediator of the
divine grace, and of eternal life, through His work of atonement. Faith
alone (to the exclusion of works) is the causa apprehendens of the salvation
promised and obtained through Christ ; but, because it transfers us into
living and devoted fellowship with Him, altogether of a moral character,
it becomes the subjective moral power of the new life regenerated through
the power of the Holy Spirit—of the life iz Christ, which, however, is the
necessary consequence, and never the ground of justification. See Luther's
Preface.—The genitive πίστεως, in accordance with the analogy of the
expressions kindred in meaning ὑπακοὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 2 Cor. x. 5, and
ὑπακ. τῆς ἀληθείας in 1 Pet. i. 22, necessarily presents itself (comp. Acts vi. 7 ;

Rom. x. 16 ; 2 Thess. i. 8 ; also 2 Cor. ix. 13) as denoting that to which the
obedience is rendered ; not (Grotius, following Beza) the causa efficiens :
‘Cut Deo obediatur per fidem,” in which explanation, besides, the ‘‘ Deo”
is arbitrarily introduced.* Hofmann is also wrong in taking the genitive

1 Augustine aptly remarks: “ Gratiam 3 So also van Hengel, on the ground of
cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem _ passages like ν᾿ 19; Phil. ii. 12, where how-
non cum omnibus communem habet.’’ ever the sense of obedience fo God results
Comp. Bengel: “‘ Gratia et singularis gratiae from the context; and Ernesti, Urspr. d.
mensura apostolis obtigit.”’ Stinde, Il. p. 281 ff., who urges against our

2 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 850; Nigelsbach, view that it makes ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ su-
z. Ilias, iii. 100. perfluous. But the glory of Christ is pre-

CHAP. 1.; 6. 39

πίστεως as eperegetical (an obedience consisting in faith). —év πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν]
is to be joined with εἰς ὑπακ. πίστεως, beside which it stands ; the ἔθνη, however,
are not all nations generally, inclusive of the Jews (so most expositors, in-
cluding Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Fritzsche, Baur), but, in accordance with
the historical destination’ of the Apostle (Gal. i. 16 ; Acts ix. 15, xxvi. 17
f.), and in consequence of the repeated prominence of his calling as Gentile
Apostle in our letter (ver. 18, xi. 13, xv. 16), all Gentile nations, to which
also the Romans belonged (Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann and others) ; and these regarded not
from a geographical point of view (Mangold, p. 76), but from a popular one,
as Ὁ ; which precludes us from thinking—not as to a section, but at any
rate as to the mass, of the Roman congregation—that it was Jewish-Christian.
This his apostolic calling for the Gentiles is meant by Paul in all passages
where he describes the ἔθνη as the object of his labours (Gal. 1. 16, ii. 2, 8,
9; Eph. iii. 1, 8; Col. 1. 27; 1 Thess. 11. 16).—inép τοῦ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ]
belongs, in the most natural connection, not to aap... . . ἀποστ. (Riickert)
or to δ ov . . . - ἔθνεσιν (de Wette, Mehring, Hofmann), but to εἰς ὑπακοὴν
: . ἔθνεσιν ; ‘‘in order to produce obedience to the faith among all
Gentile nations for the sake of (for the glorifying of, comp. Acts v. 41 ; Phil.
i. 18) His name.” Acts ix. 15, xv. 26, xxi. 13; 2 Thess. 1. 12, serve to
illustrate the matter referred to. The idea of wishing to exclude the glori-
fying of his own name (Hofmann) is not for a moment to be imputed to the
Apostle. He would have needed a very special motive for doing 80. L
Ver. 6. Application of the contents of ver. 5 to the relation in which
the Apostle stood to his readers, whereby he indicates how he is officially
entitled to address them also, teaching, exhorting, and so forth — ἐν οἷς ἐστε
καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ I. X.] To be written thus, without a comma after ὑμεῖς, with
Heumann, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Hofmann, and Bisping :
among whom also are ye called (ones) of Jesus Christ. Among the Gentile ©
nations the Roman Christians were, like other Gentile-Christian churches,
called of the Lord ; amidst the Gentile world, nationally belonging to it (in
opposition to Mangold’s mere geographical interpretation), they also shared
this high distinction. The reference of the καὶ to Paul (Th. Schott), and
consequently the interpretation : as J, so also ye, is erroneous, because the
Apostle has asserted concerning himself something far higher than the mere
Christian calling. The common interpretation of κλητοὶ ᾽Ι. X. as an address
(so too Riickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring) makes the ἐν οἷς
ἐστε k. ὑμ. quite a meaningless assertion ; for Bengel’s suggestion for meet-
ing the difficulty, that ἐν οἷς has the implied meaning : among which con-
verted nations, is purely arbitrary. — Since the calling (to the Messianic salva-
tion ; see on Gal. i. 6 ; also 1 Cor. vii. 17) is invariably ascribed by Paul to
God (viii. 30, ix. 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii.
14), we must explain it, not as : called by Christ (Luther, Riickert, Mehring,

cisely the lofty end of all ὑπακούειν τῇ πίστει. § 127; what Schmidt urges in opposition, in
Where it takes place, it is acknowledged Rudelbach’s Zeitschi'. 1849, 11. p. 188 ff. is
that Jesus Christ is Lord, Phil. ii. 11. untenable.

1 Comp. Usteri, p. 281; Weiss, bid/. Theol.

40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Hofmann, and others), but as : called (by God) who belong to Christ (so Eras-
mus, Beza, Estius, and most modern commentators, also Winer, p. 183
[Ε΄ T. 195]). The genitive is possessive, just as in the analogous τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς
αὐτοῦ in Matt. xxiv. 31. With the substantive nature of κλητός (comp. Butt-
mann, neut. Gr. p. 147 [E. T. 169]) the genitive by no means admits mere-
ly the interpretation which points to the calling subject, as in 2 Sam. xv.
11 ; 1 Kingsi. 41,49 ; Zeph. i. 7 ; but admits of very different references,
as 6.0. in Homer, Od. xvii. 386, κλητοί ye βροτῶν are not those called by mor-
tals, but those who are called among mortals (genitive totius).

Ver. 7. Now for the first time, brought by ver. 6 nearer to his readers,
Paul passes from the throng of the great intervening thoughts, ver. 2 ff., in
which he has given full and conscious expression to the nature and the dignity
of his calling, to the formal address and to the apostolic salutation. — πᾶσι
x.7.A.]| directs the letter to all beloved of God who are in Rome, etc., and there-
fore to the collective Roman Christian church, Phil. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 y Col. 1.
1),* but not, as Tholuck thinks,” at the same time also to those foreign Chris-
tians who were accidentally staying in Rome, for against this view ver. 8,
in which ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν can only refer to the Romans, is decisive. The
πᾶσι would be self-obvious and might have been dispensed with, but in this
Epistle, just because it is so detailed and is addressed to a great church
still far away from the Apostle, πᾶσι carries with it a certain diplomatic
character. Similarly, though from other grounds, Phil. i. 1. —ayaryr. Θεοῦ,
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] Characteristic special analysis of the idea ‘‘ Christians” in
accordance with the high privileges of their Christian condition. For, as
reconciled with God through Christ, they are beloved of God (v. 5 ff., viii.
39 ; Col. iii. 12); and, as those who through the divine calling to the Mes-
sianic salvation have become separated from the κόσμος and consecrated to
God, because members of the new covenant of grace, they are called saints ;
comp. 1 Cor. i. ἢ. This saintship is produced through the justification of
the called (viii. 30), and their accompanying subjection to the influence of
the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. i. 30). De Wette erroneously interprets : ‘‘ those
who are called to be saints.” So also Baumgarten-Crusius. The calling
always refers to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom. But that the
ἁγιότης is to be understood in that Christian theocratic sense after the analogy
of the Old Testament wap, and not of individual moral holiness (Pareus,
Toletus, Estius, Grotius, Flatt, Gléckler, de Wette, and others), is plain
from the very fact, that αἱ Christians as Christians are ἅγιοι. ---- χάρις. . ..
εἰρήνη] See Otto, in the Jahrb. f. ἃ. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Χάρις is the
disposition, the subjective feeling in God and Christ, which the Apostle
wishes to be entertained towards and shown to his readers ; εἰρήνη is the
actual result, which is produced through the manifestation of the χάρις :

1 With these parallels before us, it is un- stood inno relation whatever to the church.
reasonable to ask why Paul does not desig- The ὄντες ἐν ᾽᾿Ρώμῃ «.7.A. are the church, and
nate the readers as achurch. Bengel and it is to the churches that he has written
van Hengel are of opinion that no regular where he does not write to specified per-
congregational bond was as yet in exist- Sons.
ence. Th. Schott thinks that Paul as yet 2 Comp. Turretin, Wolf, and Bohme.

CHAP, 115. 8. 41

grace and salvation ( ΟΥ̓), the latter in every aspect in which it presents it-
self as the Christian issue of the χάρις. Comp. Melanchthon. The specifi-
cally Christian element in this salutation’ lies in ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς. . . .
Xpiorov. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i. 2; 1 Thess.
fee ae hressy si) 1 1.1. Tim, 18's 2° Dim, 16, Ses) Wise ae 4. Phivlennis 8)
The special rendering of εἰρήνη, peace, which, following Chrysostom and
Jerome, the majority, including Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Um-
breit, and others retain (the higher peace which is given, not by the world,
but by the consciousness of divine grace and love, see especially Umbreit,
p- 190 ff.), must be abandoned, because χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη represent the general
epistolary χαίρειν (Acts xv. 23; James i. 1), and thus the generality of the
salutation is expressed in a way characteristically Christian. —xarfp ἡμῶν
means God, in so far as we, as Christians, are His children through the
υἱοθεσία (see on Gal. iv. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15). — καὶ κυρίου] ¢.e. καὶ ἀπὸ κυρίου, not,
as Gléckler, following Erasmus, takes it, ‘‘and the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ,” for against this view stands the decisive fact that God is
never called our and Christ’s Father ; see also Tit. 1. 4 : 2 Tim. i. 2. The
formal equalization of God and Christ cannot be certainly used as a proof
(as Philippi and Mehring contend) of the divine nature of Christ—which,
however, is otherwise firmly enough maintained by Paul—since the different
predicates πατρός and κυρίου imply the different conceptions of the causa
principalis and medians. For this purpose different prepositions were not
required ; comp. on Gal. i. 1.

Vv. 8-15. First of all the Apostle now—as under various forms in all his
epistles, with the exception of that to the Galatians (also not in 1 Timothy
and Titus)—expresses with thanksgiving towards God his pious joy at the
faith of his readers ; and then assures them of his longing to be with them
and to labour among them personally. The thanksgiving is short, for it
relates to a church not only personally unknown to him, but also far
removed from the sphere of labour which he had hitherto occupied ; but
the expression of it is in accordance with the position of the church in the
metropolis of the world.

Ver. 8. Πρῶτον μὲν] [See Note VI. p. 75:] Tothat, which Paul desires jirst
of all to write, there was meant to be subjoined something further, possibly by
ἔπειτα δέ. But, amidst the ideas that now crowd upon him, he abandons this
design, and thus the μέν remains alone. Comp. iii. 2; and on Actsi. 1; 1
Cor. xi. 18.2— τῷ Θεῷ μου] οὗ εἰμὶ, ᾧ καὶ AaTpeiw, Acts xxvii. 23 ; comp. 1 Cor.
i. 4; Phil. i. 3, iv. 19; Philem. 4.— διὰ "Iyood Χριστοῦ] These words—to be
connected with εὐχαριστῶ, not with μου, as Koppe and Gléckler think,
against which vii. 25 and Col. 111. 17 are clearly decisive-—contain the medi-
ation, through which the εὐχαριστῶ takes place. The Apostle gives thanks
not on his own part and independently of Christ, not dv’ ἑαυτοῦ, but is con-
scious of his thanksgiving being conveyed through Jesus Christ, as one who is
present to his grateful thoughts ; inso far, namely, as that for which he thanks

1 Regarding Otto’s attempted derivation 2 Schaefer, ad Dem. IY. p. 142; Hartung,
of it from the Aqaronic benediction, see on 1 Partikel, If. p. 410.
Cor. i. 3.

42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

God is vividly perceived and felt by him to have been brought about through
Christ. Comp. on Col. iii. 17 ; Eph. v. 20. Thus Christ is the mediating
causal agent of the thanksgiving. To regard Him as its mediating presenter
(Origen, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Hofmann) cannot be
justified from Paul’s other writings, nor even by Heb. xiii. 15. Theodore
of Mopsuestia well observes : tov Χριστοῦ ταύτης ἡμῖν τῆς εὐχαριστίας τὴν αἰτίαν
παρασχομένου. --- ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] quite simply : your faith (on Christ) ; the
praiseworthy character of the πίστις is only set forth by the conteat (καταγγέλλ.
ἐν ὅλῳ τ. x.) afterwards. Everywhere one hears your faith openly spoken of.
Comp. xvi. 19. Observe how this flattering expression of the Apostle and
the thanksgiving coupled with it, as also the στηριχθῆναι k.t.A., In vv. 11, 12,
point to the church not as Jewish-Christian, but as Pauline. Mangold’s
reference to Phil. i. 15-18, in opposition to this inference, leaves out of view
the quite different personal sitwation under which the latter was written.
Comp. on Phil. i. 18, note. — ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κόσμῳ] a popular hyperbole, but how
accordant with the position of the church in that city, towards which the
eyes of the whole world were turned! Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8. It is, more-
over, obvious of itself, that the subjects of the καταγγέλλειν are the believers.
As to the unbelievers, see Acts xxvili. 22.

Ver. 9. Tap| The pith of the following proof of the assurance conveyed in
ver. 8 lies in ἀδιαλείπτως, not in the desire to come to Rome, which is not
subjoined till ver. 10 (Th. Schott). The interest felt by the Apostle in the
Romans, which was so vivid that he wnceasingly remembered them, etc.,
had even now urged him to his εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ k.7.A. —pdprue . . . . Θεὸς]
The asseveration in the form of an oath (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 81 ; Phil. 1.
8) is intended solemnly to strengthen the impression of what he has to say ;
viewed with reference to the circumstance which might readily excite sur-
prise, that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, had never yet laboured in the
church—which nevertheless was Pauline—of the capital of the Gentile
world. See vv. 10-13. The hypothesis of ‘‘ iniguos rumores,” that had
reached his ears from Rome (van Hengel), is unnecessary and unsupported
by any trace in the letter. — ᾧ λατρεύω x.7.2.] added to strengthen the assev-
eration with respect to its sacred conscientiousness : to whom I render holy
service in my spirit, i.e. in my moral self-consciousness, which is the living
inner sphere of that service.t| This ἐν τῷ πν. μου, on which lies the practical
stress of the relative clause, excludes indeed all λατρεύειν of a merely exter-
nal kind, exercising itself in works, or even impure ; but is not intended
to suggest a definite contrast to this, which would here be without due
motive. It is rather the involuntary expression of the profoundly vivid
Seeling of inward experience. The Apostle knows and feels that the depths
of his innermost life are pervaded by his λατρεύειν. Comp. ᾧ λατρεύω. . ..
ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, in 2 Tim. i. 3; also Heb. xii. 28. Τὸ πνεῦμα pov cannot
be the Holy Spirit (Theodoret),? but Paul bore the witness of that Spirit in

1 Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. α΄. Stinde, ΤΙ. p. 89 stowed on the Apostle (nov). See, against
f.; see also on John iv. 23. this view, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. Ὁ.
2 Holsten also (z. Hv. d. Pail. u. Petr. Ὁ. 33 ff.
886) understands it of the Holy Spirit as 4e-

CHAP UT MOS AR τον 43

his own spirit (viii. 16 ; ix. 1). — ἐν τῷ evayy. τ. υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] in the gospel of his
Son, which I preach, defend, etc. That is the great sphere to which He is
called in the service of God, in the consciousness of which he is impelled by
an inward necessity to devote to his readers that fervent sympathy of which
he assures them. Grotius and Reiche think there is an implied contrast to
the λατρεία ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, Which however is quite foreign to the connection.
Can we think of a side-glance at the Jewish style of teaching—when the
discourse breathes only love and warmth of affection ?— ὡς ἀδιαλ.] ὡς does not
stand for ὅτε (as following the Vulgate, the majority, including Fritzsche,
think), but expresses the manner (the degree). God is my witness, how un-
ceasingly, etc. Comp. Phil. i. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 10; Acts x.
28 ; Calvin ; Philippi ; van Hengel.’ The idea of modality must be every-
where retained, where ὡς takes the place of ὅτι. 3 --- pv. bu. ποιοῦμ. | make men-
tion of you, viz. in my prayers. See ver. 10. Comp. Eph. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 3 ;
1 Thess. i. 2.

Ver. 10. Πάντοτε. . . δεόμενος] annexes to ὡς ἀδιαλ. the more precise defini-
tion: in that (so that) I always (each time) in my prayers request. ἐπί, which
is to be referred to the idea of definition of time (Bernhardy, p. 246), indi-
cates the form of action which takes place. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph.
i. 16; Philem. 4 ; Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 576]. -- εἴπως ἤδη ποτέ] if perhaps
at length on some occasion. For examples of ἤδη, already (Baeumlein, Part.
p- 138 ff.), which, comparing another time with the present, conveys by the
reference to something long hoped for but delayed the idea at length, see
Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 238 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607 ; comp. Phil. iv. 10,
and the passages in Kypke. Th. Schott incorrectly renders πάντοτε, under
all circumstances, which it never means, and ἤδη πότε as if it were ἤδη viv or
ἄρτι. The mode of expression by εἵπως implies somewhat of modest fear,
arising from the thought of possible hindrances. * — εὐοδωθήσομαι] 7 shall have
the good fortune. The active εὐοδοῦν is seldom used in its proper signification,
to lead well, expeditum iter praebere, as in Soph. O. C. 1487; Theophr. de
caus. pl. v. 6, 7; LXX. Gen. xxiv. 27, 48; the passive, however, never
means via recta incedere, expeditum iter habere, but invariably (even in Prov.
Xvil. 8) metaphorically: prospero successu gaudere.* Therefore the explana-
tion of @ prosperous journey, which besides amounts only to an accessory
modal idea (Beza, Estius, Wolf, and many others following the Vulgate and
Oecumenius ; including van Hengel and Hofmann), must be rejected, and
not combined with ours (Umbreit). — ἐν τῷ θελ. τ. Ccoi|in virtue of the will
of God ; on this will the εὐοδωθ. causally depend.

Ver. 11. ᾿Επιποθῶ] not valde cupio, but denoting the direction of the long-
ing. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2; Phil. i. 8. — χάρισμα πνευματικόν] Paul calls that,
which he intends to communicate tothe Romans through his longed-for per-
sonal presence among them (ἰδεῖν ; comp. Acts xix. 21, xxviii. 20) @ spiritual

1 See also Ellendt, Zex. Soph. IT. p. 1000. 4See Herod. vi. 73; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 8 John
2 See the passages in Heindorf, ad Plat. 2; LXX. 2 Chron. xiii. 12; Ps. i. 8, and fre-
Hipp. maj. p. 281, Jacobs. ad Ach. Tat. p. 566. quently ; Ecclus. xi. 16, xli. 1; Tob. iv. 19, v.
$Comp. xi. 14; and on Phil. iii. 11; 1 16; Test. XII. Patr. p. 684.
Mace. iv. 10.

44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

gift of grace ; because in his apprehension all such instruction, comfort, joy,
strengthening, etc., as are produced by means of his labours, are regarded not
as procured by his own human individuality, but as a result which the πνεῦμα
ἅγιον works by means of him—the gracious working of the Spirit, whose organ
heis. While it was highly arbitrary in Toletus, Bengel, Michaclis, and others
to refer the expression to the apostolic miraculous gifts—against which the
εὐαγγελίσασθαι in ver. 15 is conclusive—it was a very gratuitous weakening of
its force to explain it (as is done by Morus, Rosenmiiller, Kéllner, Maier, Th.
Schott) as a gift referring to the (human) spirit ; ‘‘a gift for the inner life,”
Hofmann. In such an interpretation the specifically. Christian point of
view (1 Cor. xii. 4 ; comp. εὐλογία πνευματική, Eph. i. 9) is left out of account ;
besides, πνευματικόν would imply nothing characteristic in that case ; for
that Paul did not desire to communicate any gifts of another sort, 6.0.
external, would be taken for granted. — The expression 7... χάρ. is
modest (μετριάζοντος, Oecumenius). Note also the arrangement by which the
words are made to stand apart, and this delicate τι, the substantial χάρισμα,
and the qualifying πνευματικόν, are brought into the more special promi-
nence.’ — εἰς τὸ στηρ. ὑμᾶς) Object of the intended communication of such a
gift ; that ye may be established, namely, in the Christian character and life.
[See Note VII. p. 75.]. See ver. 12; comp. Acts xvi. 5; Rom. xvi. 25;
1 Thess. 11. 2. The στηρίξαι is conceived as being divinely wrought by
means of the Spirit, hence the passive expression ; it was to be accomplished
however, as Paul hoped, through him as the instrument of the Spirit. Man-
gold, p. 82, has, without any ground in the text, assumed that this estab-
lishment has reference to ‘‘ their abandoning their Jewish-Christian scruples
regarding the mission to the Gentiles,” whereas ver. 12 rather testifies to the
Pauline Christianity of the Romans. This remark applies also against

Sabatier, p. 166, who understands ‘‘une conception de l’évangile de Jésus
plus large et plus spirituelle.”

Ver. 12. Τοῦτο dé ἐστι] This, however, which I have just designated as my
longing (namely, ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἵνα. στηριχθ. ὑμᾶς) means, thereby I intend to
say nothing else than, etc. By this modifying explanation, subjoined with
humility, and expressed in a delicate complimentary manner (Erasmus puts
the matter too strongly, ‘‘ pia vafrities et sancta adulatio”), Paul guards
himself, in presence of a church to which he was still a stranger, from the
possible appearance of presumption and of forming too low an estimate of
the Christian standpoint of his readers.* — συμπαρακληθῆναι) must be under-

1On μεταδιδόναι τινί τι (instead of τινί
τινος), comp. 1 Thess. ii. 8; Tob. vii. 9; 2
Maee. i. 35. So sometimes, although sel-
dom, in classic authors, Herod. viii. 5, ix. 34;
Xen. Anab. iv. 5, 5; Schaef. Aelet. Ὁ. 21;
Kdiihner, IT. i. p. 295.

2 The delicate turn which he gives to the
matter is this: ‘‘ fo see you, in order that I,”
οἷο. means nothing more than “to be
quickened along with and among you,’ ete.
Consequently συμπαρακλ. is parallel to the

ἰδεῖν; for both infinitives must have the same
subject. If συμπαρακλ. κιτιλ. had been
meant to be merely a delicate explanation
of στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς (the wswal exposition
after Chrysostom), then ἐμέ must neces-
sarily have been added to συμπαρακλ. Gro-
tius aptly says: “᾿συμπαρακλ. regitur ab
ἐπιποθῶ." The true interpretation is given
also by Bengel and Th. Schott; comp.
Olshausen, Ewald, and Hofmann, who erro-
neously imputes to me the common view.

CHAP. I.,. 13. 45

stood not, with the Peshito, Vulgate, Valla, Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, de
Dieu, and many others, including Koppe and Ewald, in the sense of comfort
or of refreshment (Castalio, Grotius, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Bbhme)—which
it would be necessary that the context should call for, as in 1 Thess. iii. 2 ;
2 Thess. ii. 17, but which it here forbids by the general ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, iva x.7.A.

—but in the quite general sense of Christian encouragement and quicken-

ing. The ovu.—however is not to be explained by ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐμαυτόν ; on the

contrary, the ἐν ὑμῖν renders it necessary that Paul alone should be con-

ceived as the subject of συμπαρακληθῆναι. He desires to be quickened among

the Romans (ἐν ὑμῖν) at the same time with them, and this by the faith com-_
mon to both, theirs and his, which should mutually act and react in the

way of the Christian sympathy that is based on specific harmony of faith.

That the readers are not the subject of the συμπαρακλ. (Fritzsche, van Hen-

gel) is certain from ἐν ὑμῖν, which, if it meant 77 animis vestris (van Hengel),

would be a perfectly superfluous addition. — The compound συμπαρακλ. occurs

only here in the N. T., and is not found in the LXX. or Apocr. :} --- ἐν ἀλ-

λήλοις πίστις, More significant of the hearty character of the faith than ἡ ἀλ-

λήλων πίστις, is the faith of both viewed in its mutual identity, so that the

faith which lives in the one lives also in the other. — ὑμῶν te καὶ ἐμοῦ] placed

in this order with delicate tact.

Ver. 13. My longing towards you has often awakened in me the purpose
of coming to you, in order also among you, ete. Paul might have placed a
καί before zpoef., but was not obliged to do so (in opposition to Hofmann’s
objection); and he has not put it, because he did not think of it. The dis-
course proceeds from the desire (ver. 11) to the purpose, which is coming
nearer to realization. Hence it is the less necessary to transfer the weight
of the thought in ver. 13 to the clause expressive of purpose (Mangold), —
ov θέλω δὲ tip. ayv.] The Apostle lays stress on this communication.
Comp. on xi. 25. The δὲ is the simple μεταβατικόν. --- καὶ ἐκωλ. ἄχρι τοῦ
δεῦρο] is a parenthesis separated from the structure of the sentence, so
that iva attaches itself to προεθ. 220. rp. i. The καὶ, however, is not to
be taken as adversative, as K6llner still thinks (see, in opposition to this,
Fritzsche), but as the simple and marking the sequence of thought, which
here (comp. John xvii. 10) intervenes parenthetically. For the view which
makes it still dependent on ὅτι, so that it introduces the second part of
what the readers are to know (Hofmann), is precluded by the following
clause of purpose, which can only apply to that resolution so often formed.
— δεῦρο] used only here in the N. T. as a particle of time, but more fre-
quently in Plato and later authors; see Wetstein. That by which Paul had
been hitherto hindered, may be seen in xy. 22; consequently it was neither
by the devil (1 Thess. ii. 18) nor by the Holy Spirit (Acts xvi. 6 f.). Gro-
tius aptly observes (comp. xv. 22): ‘‘ Magis urgebat necessitas locorum, in
quibus Christus erat ignotus.” — iva τινὰ καρπὸν x... | is entirely parallel in
sense with ἵνα re μεταδῶ x.7.2. in ver. 11, and it is a gratuitous refining on
the figurative καρπόν to find specially indicated here the conversion of unbe-

1 But see Plat. ep. p. 555 A; and Polyb. vy. 83, 3,

“40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

lievers beyond the range which the church had hitherto embraced (Hofmann) ;
comp. also Th. Schott, and even Mangold, who takes the Apostle as an-
nouncing his desire to take in hand the Gentile mission also among his read-
ers, so that the καρπός would be Gentiles to be converted. No; by καρπόν
Paul, with a complimentary egotism flattering to the readers, describes that
which his personal labours among the Romans would have effected—conse-
quently what had been said without metaphor in ver. 11—aceording toa
current figure (John iv. 36, xv. 16; Phil. i. 22; Col. i. 6), as harvest-fruit
which he would have had among them, and which as the produce of his
labour would have been his (ideal) possession among them. But in this view
the literal sense of ἔχειν (comp. vi. 21 f.) is not even to be altered by tak-
ing it as consequi (Wolf, Kypke, Koppe, Ké6llner, Tholuck, and others).
To postpone the having the fruit, however, till the last day (Mehring) is
quite alien to the context. —Kxafo¢ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Aout ἔθν.] as also among the re-
maining nations, i.e. Gentiles (see on ver. 5), namely, I have fruit. In the
animation and fulness of his thought Paul has inserted twice the καὶ of
comparison, inasmuch as there was present to his mind the twofold concep-
tion: (1) ‘‘among you also,’ as among ;” and (2) ‘‘ among you, as also among.”
So frequently in Greek authors.? There is therefore no grammatical reason
for commencing the new sentence with καθώς (Mehring), nor is it in ac-
cordance with the repetition of the ἐν.

Vv. 14, 15. Fuller explanation regarding the previous iva τινὰ καρπ. σχῶ
καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, καθὼς καὶ ἐν τ. λοιπ. ἔθνεσιν. — Respecting BapBapos
(ὄνομα τὸ οὐχ ᾿Ελληνικόν, Ammonius), which, according to Greek feeling and
usage, denotes generally all non- Greeks (Plat. Polit. p. 262 D)—all who were
strangers to Greek nationality and language—see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 100
f.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 6, 1. How common it was to designate all
nations by thus dividing them into ‘EAA. x. βάρβ.. seein Wetstein and Kypke,
with examples from Philo in Loesner, p. 248. Of course the Hellenes in-
cluded the Jews also among the βάρβαροι (a view which is attributed even to
Philo, but without sufficient ground), while the Jews in their turn applied
this designation to the Hellenes. See Grimm on 2 Mace. ii. 21, p. 61. Now
it may be asked : did Paul include the Romans among the "EAAnvec or among
the βάρβαροι ? The latter view is maintained by Reiche and K6llner, follow-
ing older writers ; the former is held by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Kypke, and
others, and the former alone would be consistent with that delicacy which
must be presumed on the Apostle’s part, as in fact, since Hellenic culture

1That the ‘“ you”? must mean the Roman
Christians, and not the still wnconverted
Romans (Th. Schott), is clearly shown by
all the passages, from ver. 8 onward, in
which the ὑμεῖς occurs; and especially by
the ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν ᾿ῬΡώμῃ in ver.15. As regards
their nationality, they belong to the cate-
gory of Gentiles. Comp. xi. 13, xvi. 4; Gal.
ii. 12, 14; Eph. iii. 1. But if Paul is the
Aposile of the Gentiles, the Gentiles already
converted also belong to his apostolic
sphere of labour, as 6... the Colossians and

Laodiceans, and (vy. 5, 6) the Romans.
Schott is compelled to resort to very forc-
ed suggestions regarding ἐν ὑμῖν and ὑμῖν,
especially here and in ver. 15; as also Man-
gold, who can only find therein a geograph-
ical designation (comp. Hofmann: ‘“‘ he
addresses them as a constituent portion of
the people of Rome’), Comp. on ver. 15.

2 See Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 153; Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 457 Εἰ ; Winer, p.
409 [E. T. 440].

CHART T?, ΤᾺΣ 15. 47

had become prevalent in Rome, especially since the time of Augustus, the
Roman community was regarded from the Roman point of view as separated
from the barbaria, and only nations like the Germans, Scythians, etc., were
reckoned to belong to the latter.’ But the following σοφοῖς te καὶ ἀνοήτοις, as
also the circumstance that the Romans, although they separated themselves
from the barbarians (Greek authors included them among these, Polyb. v.
104, 1, ix. 37, 5, Krebs and Kypke in loc.), are nowhere reckoned among the
Hellenes or designated as such, make it evident that the above question is to
be entirely excluded here, and that Paul’s object is merely to set forth gener-
ally his obligation as Apostle of the Gentiles in its wniversality. This he
does in the form of a twofold division, according to nationality, and accord-
ing to condition of culture, so that the thought which he would express is : ;
Tam in duty bound to a// Gentiles, without distinction of their nationality or
of their culture ; therefore I am ready, to you also, ete. — ὀφειλέτης] Paul re-
gards the divine obligation of office, received through Christ (ver. 5), as the
undertaking of a debt, which he has to discharge by preaching the Gospel
among all Gentile nations.’— οὕτω] so, that is, in accordance with this relation,
by which I am in duty bound to the "EAAyo τ. x. BapB., to the cod. τ. κ.
avoft. It does not refer to καθώς, ver. 13, which is dependent on the pre-
ceding καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, but gathers up in itself the import of “Βλλησι. . .. εἰμι:
80 then, ita, sie igitur.* Bengel well says : ‘‘ est quasi ephiphonema et illatio
a toto ad partem insignem.” — The οὕτω τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον (86. ἐστί) is to be
translated : accordingly, the inclination on my part |lit. the on-my-part ineli-
nation] 8, so that τὸ belongs to πρόθυμον, though the expression τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ
πρόθυμον, is not substantially different from the simple τὸ πρόθυμόν μου, but
only more significantly indicative of the idea that Paul on his part was will-
ing, etc. Comp. on Eph. i. 15. He says therefore : in this state of the case
the inclination which exists on his side is, to preach to the Romans also. At the
same time κατ᾽ ἐμὲ is purposely chosen out of a feeling of dependence on a
higher Will (ver. 10), rather than the simple τὸ πρόθυμόν μου, instead of
which τὸ ἐμοῦ πρόθυμον would come nearer to the expression by κατ᾽ ἐμέ."
The above connection of τὸ... . . πρόθυμον is adopted by Seb. Schmid,
Kypke, Reiche, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring, and others. So
also Th. Schott, who however takes οὕτω in a predicative sense ; as does
likewise Hofmann : Thus the case stands as to the fact and manner of the in-
clination on my part. This however is the less appropriate, because ver. 14
contains, not the mode, but the regulative basis of the προθυμία of ver. 15.
If τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ be taken by itself, and not along with πρόθυμον, there would re-
sult the meaning : there is, so far as I am concerned, an inclination ; comp.
de Wette. But, however correct in linguistic usage might be τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ,

1 Comp. Cicero, de fin. ii. 15, “non solum 4 On the substantival πρόθυμον, in the
Graecia et Italia sed etiam omnis bar- sense of προθυμία, comp. 3 Mace. vy. 26; Plat.
baria.” Leg. ix. p. 859 B; Eur. Med. 178 ; Thue. iii.

2 Comp. inreference to this subject, Acts 89, 8; Herodian, viii. 3, 15.

XXvi.17f.; Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 16. 5 See Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 278; Mat-

3 See Hermann, ad Luc. de hist. conscr. Ὁ. thiae, p. 734.
161; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 807 [E. T. 357].

48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

which would here yield the sense pro mea virili, as in Dem. 1210, 20, the
πρόθυμον without a verb would stand abruptly and awkwardly, because not
the mere copula ἐστί, but ἐστί in the sense of πάρεστι, adest, would require to
be supplied. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Rickey Kollner, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, take τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ as a periphrasis for ἐγώ, sd that πρόθυμον must be
taken as the predicate (Ion my part am disposed). Without sanction from
the wsus loquendi; what is cited by KG6llner from Vigerus, p. 7 f., and by
Tholuck, is of a wholly different kind. The Greek would express this mean-
ing by τὸ γ᾽ ἐμὸν πρόθυμον. "--- καὶ ὑμῖν] as also included in that general obliga-
tion of mine ; and not: although ye belong to the σοφοί (Bengel, Philippi),
which the text does not suggest. But τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ is added with emphasis,
since Rome (‘‘ caput et theatrum orbis terrarum,” Bengel) could Jeast of all
be exempted from the task assigned to the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hof-
mann erroneously holds (comp. Mangold, p. 84) that Paul addresses the
readers by ὑμῖν, not in their character as Christians, but as Romans, and that
εὐαγγελίσασθαι Means the preaching to those still wnconverted ; comp. Th.
Schott, p. 91. No, he addresses the Christian church in Rome, to which he
has not yet preached, but wishes to preach, the tidings of salvation, which
they have up to the present time received from others. As in every verse,
from the 6th to the 18th, so also here the ὑμεῖς can only be the κλητοὶ 1. X.,
ver. 6 f., in Rome.?

Vv. 16, 17. Transition to the theme (οὐ yap ἐπαισχ. τ. evayy.), and the
theme itself (δύναμις. . . . ζήσεται).

Ver. 16. Tap] Paul confirms negatively his προθυμία. . . . εὐαγγελίσασθαι;
for which he had previously assigned a positive motive. — ov γὰρ ἐπαισχ. T.
evayy.| Written, no doubt, with a recollection of what he had experienced
in other highly civilized cities (Athens, Corinth, Ephesus), as well as, gen-
erally, in reference to the contents of the Gospel as a preaching of the eross
(1 Cor. i. 18).° Hence the negative form of the expression, as in contrast with
the feeling of shame which that experience might have produced in him, as
if the Gospel were something worthless, through which one could gain no
honour and could only draw on himself contempt, mockery, etc. Comp. 2
Tim. i. 12. — ἐπαισχύνομαι (Plat. Soph. p. 247, D ; 2 Tim. i. 8), and αἰσχύνομαι,
with accusative of the object : see Kitihner, II. i. p. 255 f.; Bernhardy, p.
113. — δύναμις yap Θεοῦ ἐστιν] Ground of the οὐκ ἐπαισχ. τ. ebayy. Power of God

genitive of the subject) is the Gospel, in so far as God works by means of the
message of salvation. By awaking repentance, faith, comfort, love, peace,
joy, courage in life and death, hope, etc., the Gospel manifests itself as poaer,
as a mighty potency, and that of God, whose revelation and work the Gospel is

1Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 533 A.

2 See besides, against Mangold, Beyschlag
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 642 f.

3 From his own point of view, viz. that
the church in Rome was Jewish- Christian,
Mangold, p. 98 f., suggests theocratic scru-
ples on the part of the readers regarding
the Apostle’s universalism. An idea incon-
sistent with the notion conveyed by émacx.,

and lacking any other indication whatever
in the text; for the subsequent Ἰουδαίῳ τε
πρῶτον «.7.A. cannot have been designed
cautiously to meet such doubts (see, on the
other hand, ii. 9); but only to serve as ex-
pressive of the objective state of the case as
regards the historical order of salvation, in
accordance with the doctrinal development
of principles which Paul has in view.

CHAPS Τὶ 17. 49
(hence τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, xv. 16 ; 2Cor. xi. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2). Comp. 1 Cor.
i. 18, 94. The expression asserts more than that the Gospel is ‘‘a powerful
means in the hand of God” (Riickert), and is based on the fact that it is the

living self-manifestation and effluence of God, as ῥῆμα Θεοῦ (Eph. vi. Le

Paul knew how to honour highly the message of salvation which it was his
oftice to convey, and he was not ashamed of it.

but the message itself. — εἰς σωτηρίαν] Working of this power of God : unto
salvation, consequently with saving power. And what salvation is here meant,
was understood by the reader ; for σωτηρία and σώζεσθαι are the standing ex-
pressions for the eternal salvation in the Messianic kingdom (comp. ζήσεται, ver.

Here also, as in vv. 1, 9, .
τὸ evayy. is not the work or business of conveying the message (Th. Schott), ἢ

17), the opposite of ἀπώλεια (Phil. i. 28 ; comp. θάνατος, 2 Cor. ii. 16). Comp.
generally, James i. 21, τὸν λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. ΑΒ to
how the Gospel works salvation, see ver. 17. --- παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι] shows !

to whom the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. [See Note VIII. p.
76.| Faith is the condition on the part of man, without which the Gospel
cannot be to him effectually that power ; for in the unbeliever the causa ap-
prehendens of its efficacy is wanting. Comp. ver. 17. Melanchthon aptly
says : ‘‘ Non enim ita intelligatur haec efficacia, ut side calefactione loquere-
mur : ignis est efficax in stramine, etiamsi stramen nihil agit.” — παντί gives
emphatic prominence to the wniversality, which is subsequently indicated in
detail. Comp. iii. 22. —’Iovdaiw te πρῶτον x. “Βλληνι] τε. . . . καὶ denotes
the equality of what isadded.' πρῶτον expresses the priority ; but not merely
in regard to the divinely appointed order of szccession, in accordance with
which the preaching of the Messiah was to begin with the Jews and thence
extend to the Gentiles, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius,
and many others, including Olshausen, van Hengel and Th. Schott, have
understood it ; but in reference to the jirst claim on the Messianic salvation
in accordance with the promise, which was in fact the ground of that external
order of succession in the communication of the Gospel. So Erasmus, Calo-
vius, and others, including Reiche, Tholuck, Riickert, Fritzsche, de Wette,
Philippi, Ewald, Hofmann. That this is the Pauline view of the rela-
tion is plain from iii. 1 f. ; ix. 1 ff. ; xi. 16 ff. ; xv. 9; comp. John iv. 22;
Matt. xv. 24; Acts xiii. 46. The Jews are the viol τῆς βασιλ., Matt. viii.
12. ---“Ἑλληνι] denotes, in contrast to ’Iovdaiw all Non-Jews. Acts xiv. 1; 1
Cor. x. 32 al.

Ver. 17 illustrates and gives a reason for the foregoing affirmation : δύναμις
Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτ. π. τ. πιστ., Which could not be the case, unless δικαιοσύνη
Θεοῦ κ.τ.2. [See Note IX. p. 76.] — δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ] That this does not denote,
as in iii. 5, an attribute of God,* is plain from the passage cited in proof

1 See Hartung, Partikell, I. p. 99; Baeum-
lein, Part. Ὁ. 225.

2It has been understood as the truthful-
ness of God (Ambrosiaster) ; as the justitia
Det essentialis (Osiander); as the justitia
distributiva (Origen, and several of the
older expositors, comp. Flatt) ; as the good-

ness of God (Schoettgen, Semler, Morus,
Krehl); as the justifying righteousness of
God (Mircker). According to Ewald it is
the divine righteousness regarded as power
and life-blessing, in the goodness of which
man may and must fully participate, if he
would not feel its sting and its penalty.

50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

from Hab. ii. 4, where, by necessity of the connection, ὁ δίκαιος must denote
the person who is in the state of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Comp. iii. 21 ff. It
must therefore be an ethical relation of man that is meant ; and the genitive
Θεοῦ must (otherwise in Jas. i. 20)’ be rendered as the genitive of emanation
from, consequently : rightness which proceeds from God, the relation of being
right into which man is put by God (i.e. by an act of God declaring him
righteous).? This interpretation of the genitive as gen. originis, acutely and
clearly set forth anew- by Pfleiderer,* is more specially evident from iii. 23,
where Paul himself first explains the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and that by
δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, Which is turned in ver. 26 to the active
form : δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως 3 Comp. ver. 30, viii. 33, according to which
the genitive appears equivalent to ἐκ Θεοῦ (Phil. iii. 9), in contrast to the
ἐμή and ἰδία δικαιοσύνη (Rom. x. 8), and to the δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν (Luke xii. 15).
The passage in 2 Cor. v. 21 is not opposed to this view (as Fritzsche thinks) ;
see in loc. ; nor are the expressions δικαιοῦσθαι ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ (ili. 20), and
παρὰ Θεῷ (Gal. iii. 11), for these represent a special form under which the
relation is conceived, expressing more precisely the judicial nature of the
matter. Hence it is evident that the interpretation adopted by many
modern writers (including Kéllner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Umbreit), following
Luther : ‘‘ righteousness before. God,” although correct in point of substance,
is unsuitable as regards the analysis of the genitive, which they take as geni-
tive of the object. This remark applies also against Baur, who (Paulus, II.
p. 146 ff.) takes the genitive objectively as the δικαιοσύνη determined by the
idea of God, adequate to that idea ; whilst in his newtest. Theol. p. 134, he
prefers to take the genitive subjectively: the righteousness produced through
God, i.e. ‘‘the manner in which God places man in the adequate relation to
Himself.”—The following remarks may serve exegetically to illustrate the
idea of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Which in the Gospel is revealed from faith :—Since
God, as the holy Lawgiver and Judge, has by the law imposed on man the
task of keeping it entirely and perfectly (Gal. iii. 10), He can only receive
and treat as a δίκαιος who is such, as he should be—as one normally guiltless
and upright, who should be so, therefore, habitwally—the person who keeps
the whole law ; or, in other words, only the man who is perfectly obedient
to the law can stand to God in the relation of δικαιοσύνη. Such perfection
however no man could attain ; not merely no Gentile, since in his case the
natural moral law was obscured through immorality, and through dis-
obedience to it he had fallen into sin and vice ; but also no Jew, for natural
desire, excited by the principle of sin in him through the very fact of legal
prohibition, hindered in his case the fulfilment of the divine law, and ren-

Comp. Matthias on iii. 21: a righteousness, Wette, Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 186]; Winzer
such as belongs to God, consequently, ‘‘a de vocid. δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, et δικαιοῦν in ep.
righteousness which exists also inwardly ad Rom. p. 10); Bisping, van Hengel, Er-

and is in every respect perfect.” nesti, Urspr. ἃ. Stinde, I. p. 153; Mehring ;

1 Where whatis meant is the rightness re- also Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. I. p.
quired by God, which man is supposed to 627); Holsten, z. Hu. ἃ: Paul. u. Petr. p.
realize through exerting himself in works. 408f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 380f.; Rich.

2 Comp. Chrysostom, Bengel, and others, Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 10.
including Riickert, Olshausen, Reiche, de 3 In Hilgenfeld@’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 168 ff.

CHAP ἡ 17, δὶ

dered him also, without exception, morally weak, a sinner and object of the
divine wrath. If therefore man was to enter into the relation of a righteous
person and thereby of a future participator in the Messianic blessedness, it
was necessary that this should be done by means of an extraordinary divine
arrangement, through which grace and reconciliation should be imparted
to the object of wrath, and he should be put forward for the judgment of
God as righteous. This arrangement has been effected through the sending
of His Son and His being given up to His bloody death as that of a guiltless
sacrifice ; whereby God’s counsel of redemption, formed from eternity, has
been accomplished,—objectively for all, subjectively to be appropriated on
the part of individuals through faith, which is the ὄργανον ληπτικόν. And,
as this plan of salvation is the subject-matter of the Gospel, so in this Gospel
that which previously, though prefigured by the justification of Abraham,
was an unrevealed μυστήριον, namely, righteousness from God, is revealed
(ἀποκαλύπτεται), inasmuch as the Gospel makes known both the accomplished
work of redemption itself and the means whereby man appropriates the
redemption, namely, fwith in Christ, which, imputed to him as righteousness
(iv. 5), causes man to be regarded and treated by God out of grace and
δωρεάν (111. 24) as righteous (δίκαιος), so that he, like one who has perfectly
obeyed the law, is certain of the Messianic bliss destined for the δίκαιοι. ἢ
The so-called obedientia Christi activa is not to be included in the causa
meritoria of the divine justification ; but is to be regarded as the fulfilment
of a preliminary condition necessary to the death of Jesus, so far as the jus-
tification of man was objectively based on the latter ; without the complete
active obedience of Christ (consequently without His sinlessness) His passive
obedience could not have been that causa meritoria (2 Cor. v. 21). — ἀποκα-
λύπτεται) is revealed ; for previously, and in the absence of the Gospel, the
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ Was and is something quite hidden in the counsel of God, the

1 Justification is simply imputative, an
actus forensis, not inherent, and therefore
not a gradual process, as Romang anew
maintains, but produced by the imputation
of faith. The new moral life in Christ is
the necessary consequence (Rom. vi. 8), so
that regeneration comes after justification—
a divine order of salvation inconsistent
with all Osiandrian views. See Ritschl, in
the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 795 ff.,
altkath. Kirche, p. 76 ff. The regenerate lifeis
neither a part (Baumgarten-Crusius) nor the
positive side (Baur) of justification, the con-
ception of which is not to be referred either
to the consciousness of liberation from guilt
given with conversion (Schleiermacher) ; or
to the unity of forgiveness with the éins¢ill-
ing of love (Marheineke) ; or to an anticipa-
tion of the judgment of God on faith in respect
to the divine dife which develops itself from
it as its fruit (Rothe, Martensen, Hundesha-
gen, and others, including Tholuck on vy. 9,
and Catholics like Déllinger, see on iy. 8)---

so that, with regard to its truth, it would
have to be made dependent on sanctijica-
tion (Nitzsch), or the dying out of sin (Beck),
and so forth,—or to the establishment of
the new sanctified humanity in the person of
Christ (Menken-Hofmann). The Form. Cone.,
p. 687, rightly warns: ‘‘ne ea quae fidem prae-
cedunt et ea quae eam sequuntur articulo de
justificatione, tanquam ad justificationem
pertinentia, admisceantur.”” Respecting
the sensus forensis of justification, which is
by no means a product of medizyal scholas-
ticism (in opposition to Sabatier, p. 263),
comp. Kd6stlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol.
1856, p. 89 ff.; and in its purely exegetical
aspect, especially Wieseler on Gal. ii. 16,
Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zet/schr. 1872, p.
161 ff., and Weiss, 0id/. Theol. §112. We may
add that with Luther’s doctrine of justifica-
tion Zwingli substantially concurs. See, for
defence of the latter (against Stahl), Ritschl,
Rechtfert. u. Verséhnung, 1870, I. p. 165 ff.

52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

knowledge of which is first given in the Gospel (comp. xvi. 25; Acts
xvii. 30). The prophecies of the Old Testament were only preparatory and
promissory (ver. 2), and therefore were only the means of introducing the
evangelical revelation itself (xvi. 26). The present is used, because the
Gospel is conceived of in its continuous proclamation. Comp. the perfect,
mepavépwrat, iii, 21, and on the other hand the historical aorist φανερωθέντος
in xvi. 26. Through the ἀποκάλυψις ensues the φανεροῦσθαι, through the
revelation the being manifest as object of knowledge. — ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν]
may not be connected with δικαίοσ. (Luther, Hammond, Bengel, Koppe,
Riickert, Reiche, Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring, and others), but rather—as
the only arrangement which the position of the words admits without arbi-
trariness—with ἀποκαλύπτεται. So also van Hengel and Hofmann ; comp.
Luke ii. 85. The δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, namely, is revealed in the Gospel ἐκ
πίστεως, inasmuch as in the Gospel faith on Christ is made known as the subjec-
tive cause from which righteousness comes. Thus the Gospel, as the ῥῆμα τῆς
πίστεως (x. 8) and λόγος τῆς καταλλαγῆς (2 Cor. v. 19), makes the divine right-
eousness become manifest from faith, which it in fact preaches as that
which becomes imputed ; for him who does not believe the ἀκοὴ πίστεως
(Gal. ili. 2), it leaves this δικαιοσύνη to remain a locked-up unrevealed bless-
ing. But it isnot merely ἐκ πίστεως, but also εἰς πίστιν ; to faith (comp. 2 Cor.
ii. 16). Inasmuch, namely, as righteousness is revealed in the Gospel from
faith, faith is aimed at, i.e., the revelation spoken of proceeds from faith,
and is designed to produce faith. This sense, equivalent to ‘‘ wt jfides
habeatur,” and rightly corresponding alike with the simple words and the
context, is adopted by Heumann, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Nielsen, and
van Hengel. It is not ‘‘ too meaningless” (de Wette), nor ‘‘ saying pretty
nearly nothing” (Philippi); but is on the contrary emphatically appropriate
to the purpose of representing faith as the Fuc totum (‘‘ prora et puppis,”
Bengel, comp. Baur, II. p. 161).} Therefore εἰς πίστιν is not to be taken as
equivalent to εἰς τὸν πιστεύοντα, for the believer (Oecumenius, Seb. Schmid,
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Reiche, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr,
Maier, and Philippi), a rendering which should have been precluded by
the abstract correlative ἐκ πίστεως. Nor does it mean : for the furtherance
and strengthening of faith. (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 1, 11. p. 644. Pott.,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and
others, including Kéllner ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, Klee, and Stengel ;
for the thought : ‘‘from an ever new, never tiring, endlessly progressive
faith” (Ewald) * is here foreign to the connection, which is concerned only
with the great fundamental truth in its simplicity ; the case is different
in 2 Cor. iii. 18. Quite arbitrary, moreover, was the interpretation : ‘‘ ex
Jide legis in fidem evangelit” (Tertullian).* Finally, to take πίστιν as faith-
JSulness, and to understand πίστις εἰς πίστιν in the sense of faith in the
Saithfulness of God (Mehring), is to introduce what is neither in the words

1 See also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 629 f. 3 Comp. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret :
Comp. vi. 19; 2 Cor. ii. 16. δεῖ yap πιστεῦσαι Tots προφήταις, Kat de

% Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungst. p. 7, 116, ἐκείνων εἰς THY τοῦ εὐαγγελίου πίστιν
and Umbreit. ποδηγηθῆναι, Zeger, and others.

CHAP. I., 18: 53

nor yet suggested by the context. Ewald in his Jahrb. LZ. yp. 87 ff., inter-
prets : faith in faith, the reference being to the faith with which man meets
the divine faith in his power and his good will (?). But the idea of ‘‘ faith
from beneath on the faith from above,” as well as the notion generally of
God believing on men, would be a paradox in the N. T., which no reader
could have discovered without more clear and precise indication. After
ἐκ πίστ. every one could not but understand εἰς πίστ. also as meaning human
faith ; and indeed everywhere it is man that believes, not God. — καθὼς
γέγραπται] represents what has just been stated, δικαιοσύνη. . . . πίστιν, as
taking place in accordance with a declaration of Scripture, consequently
according to the necessity of the divine counsel of salvation. He who from
faith (on Christ) is righteous (transferred into the relation of the δικαιοσύνη
Θεοῦ) shall live (be partaker of the Messianic eternal life). This, as the
Messianic sense intended to be conveyed by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1. 21)
in the prophetic words, Hab. ii. 4, ‘‘ the righteous shall by his faithfulness *
live” (attain the theocratic life-blessedness), is recognized by Paul, and ex-
pressed substantially in the language of the LXX., rightly omitting the μου,
which they inaccurately add to πίστεως. In doing so Paul might, in ac-
cordance with the Messianic reference of the passage, connect ἐκ πίστεως
(1N}1383)—seeing that on this causal definition the stress of the expression
lies—with ὁ δίκαιος ; because; if the life of the righteous has πίστις as its
cause, his δικαιοσύνη itself can have no other ground or source. That he has
really so connected the words, as Beza and others rightly perceived (see
especially Hélemann, de justitiae ex fide ambab. in V. T. sedibus, Lips. 1867),
and not, as most earlier expositors have supposed (also de Wette, Tholuck,
Delitzsch, on Hab. /.c., Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald,
and Hofmann, ἐκ πίστ. ζήσεται, is plain from the connection, according to
which it is not the life ἐκ πίστ., but the revelation of righteousness ἐκ rior. that
is to be confirmed by the Old Testament. The case is different in Heb. x. 38.
See further, generally, on Gal. iii. 11.—The δέ is, without having any
bearing on the matter, adopted along with the other words from the LXX.
Comp. on Acts ii. 17. A contrast to the unrighteous who shall die (Hof-
mann) is neither here nor in Hab. ii. 4 implied in the text.

Vv. 18-32. [See Note X. p. 77.] Proof of ver. 17 deduced from experience,
and that in the first instance with respect to Gentile humanity (the proof in
regard to the Jews begins at ch. ii.).

Ver. 18. This great fundamental proposition of the Gospel, ver. 17, is /
proved (yap) agreeably to experience, by the fact that, where there is no
πίστις, there is also no ἀποκάλυψις of righteousness, but only of the wrath of
God. ‘‘ Horrendum est initium ac fulmen,” Melanchthon, 1540. — ἀποκαλύπ-
terat] Emphatically placed, in harmony with the ἀποκαλ. in ver. 17, at the
beginning. -- ὀργὴ Θεοῦ] The antithesis of δικαίοσ. Θεοῦ, ver. 16. The ὀργὴ
of God is not to be explained with several of the Fathers (in Suicer), Eras-

1 This faithfulness, in the prophet’s sense, trustful self-surrender to God. Comp. Um-
the MW, and the πίστις inthe Christian breit, p. 197.
sense, have the same fundamental idea,

δ4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

mus, and many later authorities, as poena divina, which is nothing but a
rationalizing interchange of ideas, but rather in the proper literal sense :
wrath, an affection of the personal God, having a necessary connection with
His love. The wrath of God, the reality of which is indisputable as the
very presupposition of the work of atonement, is the love of the holy God
(who is neither neutral nor one-sided in his affection), for all that is good in
its energy as antagonistic to all that is evil.1 See on Matt. iii. 7; Eph. ii.
3. —4a7’ οὐρανοῦ) is neither to be connected with ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, as Beza, Estius,
and many others hold, nor with the bare Θεοῦ (Mehring), but, as the order of
the words and the parallel definition ἐν αὐτῷ in ver. 17 require, belongs to
ἀποκαλύπτεται ; SO that heaven, the dwelling-place and throne of God (comp.
on Matt. vi. 9), is designated as the place from which the ἀποκάλυψις of
the ὀργὴ Θεοῦ issues. ‘‘ Majestatem irati Dei significat,” Bengel. The reve-
lation of righteousness takes place ἐν εὐαγγελίῳ, ver. 17, as something spirit-
ually brought home to the consciousness through the medium of the Gospel ;
but that of the divine wrath descends from heaven, manifested as a divine
matter of fact ; by which description, however, the destructive character of
this working of divine power is not expressed (Th. Schott), although it is
in fact implied in the entire context. But what revelation of divine wrath is
meant? Paul himself supplies the information in ver. 24 ff., in which is
described what God in His sufficiently well-grounded (vv. 19-238) wrath did
(παρέδωκεν αὐτούς). God’s wrath therefore is revealed from heaven in this
way, that those who are the objects of it are given up by God to terrible
retribution in unchastity and all vice. Against this interpretation (comp.
Mehring), which is adopted also by Tholuck, Weber (vom Zorne Gottes, p.
89), and Th. Schott, it cannot be objected, with Hofmann, that Paul must
have written ἀπεκαλύφθη ; for he here in fact expresses the general proposi-
tion of experience, to which the concrete historical representation subse-
quently shall correspond ; the divine aziom is placed first (present), and
then the history of it follows (aorist). . Irrelevant is also the objection of
Philippi, that ἀποκαλύπτειν always denotes a supernatural revelation. For
ἀποκαλύπτειν means to reveal what was previously unknown, what was veiled
from our cognition, so that it now becomes manifest ; and, in reference to
this, it is a matter of indifference whether the revelation takes place in a
natural or in asupernatural manner.? The mode of revealing is not indicated
in the word itself, but in the context ; and hence according to the connec-
tion it is used also, as here, of a revelation in fact, by which a state of things pre-
viously unknown comes to our knowledge (Matt. x. 26; Luke ii. 35 ; 2 Thess. ii.
3, 6, 8). Moreover, even according to our interpretation, a divine revelation
is meant, by which there is certainly brought to light a μυστήριον, namely,
the connection of the phenomenon with the divine ὀργή. According to

1 The idea of the divine ὀργή is diamet-
rically opposed to every conception of sin
as anecessity interwoven with human de-
velopment. Even Lactantius has aptly re-
marked, de ira Dei, v.9: “51 Deus non iras-
citur impiis et injustis, nec pios justosque
diligit ; in rebus enim diversis aut in ut-

ramque partem moveri necesse est, aut in
neutram.”

2 In this case it cannot make any differ-
ence whether (God is or is not the revealing
subject, as is most plainly seen from Matt.
qa bly

CHAP. 1., 18. 55

others, Paul means the inward revelation of the divine wrath, given by
means of reason and conscience (Ambrosiaster, Wolf, and others, including
Reiche and Gléckler), in support of which view they appeal to ver. 19.
But, on the contrary, ax’ οὐρανοῦ requires us to understand an ἀποκάλυψις
cognizable by the senses ; and ver. 19 contains not the mode of the manifesta-
tion of wrath, but its moving cause (διότι). Others hold that the ἀποκάλυψις
of the divine wrath has come through the Gospel (‘‘ continens minas,” Grotius),
and that ἐν αὐτῷ is to be again supplied from ver. 17. So Aquinas, Bellar-
mine, Corn. ἃ Lapide, Estius, Grotius, Heumann, Semler, Morus, Béhme,
Benecke, Maier ; comp. Umbreit, who includes also the Old Testament. It
is decisive against this view that az’ οὐρανοῦ, just because it is parallel to
ἐν αὐτῷ in ver. 17, lays down a mode of manifestation quite different from
ἐν αὐτῷ. Had the latter been again in Paul’s mind here, he would have
repeated it with emphasis, as he has repeated the ἀποκαλύπτεται. Others hold
that the manifestation of wrath at the general judgment is meant (Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Toletus, Limborch, Koppe,
Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald). The present, considered in itself, might
be chosen in order to express a vivid realization of the future, or might be
accounted for by the ἐν αὐτῷ, which, it is alleged, is to be again mentally
supplied (Ewald) ; but the former explanation is to be rejected on account
of the preceding purely present ἀποκαλ. in ver. 17 ; and against the latter
may be urged the very fact, that ἐν αὐτῷ is not repeated. Had this been the
meaning, moreover, the further course of the exposition must have borne
reference to the general judgment, which it by no means does ; and there-
fore this interpretation is opposed to the connection, as well as unwarranted
by i. 5 (where the mention of the revelation of judgment belongs to quite a
different connection) ; and not required by the idea of ἀποκαλύπτειν itself,
since that idea is adequately met by the divine matter-of-fact revelation of
wrath here intended (see above), and besides, the word is repeated inten-
tionally for rhetorical effect. Lastly, while others have contented themselves
with leaving the ἀποκάλυψις here in its entire generality (Olshausen, Tholuck ;
comp. Calovius), and thus relieved themselves from giving any explanation
of it, the reference to the religion of the O. T. (Bengel and Flatt) seems
entirely arbitrary and groundless, and the interpretations which apply it to
evils generally affecting the world as an expression of the divine wrath (Hof-
mann), or to the external and internal distress of the time (Baumgarten-Cru-
sius), are too general and indefinite, and thereby devoid of any concrete
import in keeping with the text. —éri πᾶσ. ἀσέβ. x. adix. ἀνθρ.] contains the
hostile direction (comp. Dem. 743, 22) of the ἀποκαλύπτεται . . .. οὐρανοῦ :
against every ungodliness and immorality of men, which, etc. ’AcéBeca and
ἀδικία ' are distinguished as irreligiousness and immorality, so that both describe
the improbitas, but under different aspects, in reference to the fear of God
and to the standard of morals ; hence the former, as involving the idea of
impiety, is the stronger expression.?, That the distinction between them is

1 Plat. Prot. Ὁ. 823 ἘΠ: Xen. Cyr. viii. 8, 7; 2 Comp. Dem. 548, 11: ἀσέβημα, οὐκ ἀδίκημα
Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 48. μόνον.

δ0 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

not to be understood, with Kéllner, following Theophylact, Grotius, Calo-
vius, Wolf, and many others, as profanitas in Deum and injuria in proximum,
is proved by the following ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχ. ---- τῶν τ. ἀλήθ. ἐν ἀδικ. Katey. | who
keep down the truth through immorality, do not let it develop itself into
v power and influence on their religious knowledge and their moral condition.
The article (quippe qui) introduces that characteristic of the ἀνθρώπων, not
yet more precisely defined, which excites the divine wrath. Rightly in the
Vulgate : corwm qui. See Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 134]. It may be paraphras-
ed: ‘‘of those, I mean, who.” Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 7, 13.
Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks : ‘‘ veritas in mente nititur et urget, sed
homo eam impedit.” This is the peculiar, deeply unfortunate, constant
self-contradiction of the heathen character.’ On κατέχειν, to hinder, comp. 2
Thess. 11. 6 ; Luke iv. 42 ; 1 Macc. vi. 37.525 Against the interpretation of
Michaelis, Koppe, and Baur, who take κατέχειν here as meaning to possess (1
Cor. vil. 80 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10), ‘‘ who possess the truth-in anrighteousness, who
know what God’s will is, and yet sin,” ver. 21 is decisive, where the contin-
uous possession of the truth is negatived by ἐματαιώθησαν . . . καρδία ; where-
fore also it cannot be rendered with Melanchthon and van Hengel : who
hold the truth in the bondage of immorality (vii. 6 ; Gen. xxxix. 20, xlii. 19).
The ἀλήθεια is correctly interpreted in the sense of divine truth generally ;
the mode of revelation, in which it is presented to man’s knowledge, is fur-
nished by the context, here, by ver. 19 f., as the truth apparent by natural
revelation in the works of God ; not therefore in the sense of the doctrine of
the Gospel, which is hindered in its diffusion by Jews and Gentiles (Ammon,
comp. Ewald). —év ἀδικία) instrumental. To make it equivalent to ἀδίκως
(Reiche, following Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Raphel, and others ;
comp. ἐν δυνάμει in ver. 4) arbitrarily deprives the representation of an ele-
ment essential to its fulness and precision, and renders it tame ; for it is
self-evident that the κατέχειν τ. ἀλ. is unrighteous or sinful, but not so much
so that it takes place through sin. — Finally, it is to be noted that Paul,
in ἀνθρώπ. (correlative of Θεοῦ) τῶν τ. ἀλήθ. ἐν ἀδικ. Katey., expresses himself
quite generally, making apparent by ἀνθρώπ. the audacity of this God-oppos-
ing conduct ; but he means the Gentiles, as is indicated even by ἐν ἀδικίᾳ
(comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1), and as is confirmed beyond doubt by the continuation
of the discourse in ver. 19 ff. Koppe supposed that Paul meant the Jews
especially, but included also the Gentiles ; Benecke, that he speaks of the
whole human race in general, which view Mehring specially defends. But
the peculiar character of what is contained in vy. 21-82 shows that the Jews
are to be entirely excluded from the description which is carried on to the
end of the chapter. It is not till ch. ii. 1 that the discourse passes over to
them, and makes them suddenly see themselves reflected in the Gentile
mirror,

Ver. 19. Διότι] propterea quod—only to be separated by a comma from the
foregoing—specifies more precisely the causal relation, on account of which the .

1Comp. Nigelsbach, Homer. Theol. I. Ὁ. 2 Plat. Phaed. Ὁ. 117 C; Soph. #7. 754;
ΤΠ ἘΠ Pind. Jsthm. iii. 2, and Dissen in loc.

CHAPS 1.5719, 57
wrath of God comes upon such men, etc. (ver. 18). They keep down the
truth through immorality ; if they did so out of ignorance, they would be
excusable : but they do not do so out of ignorance, and therefore God’s wrath
is manifested against them. This view of the connection is suggested by the
literal meaning of διότι itself, and confirmed by εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογ.
Comp. Hofmann. So also Fritzsche, who, however, takes διότε as equivalent
to yap, as does also Philippi,—a use of it that never occurs, not even in Acts
xviii. 10. This linguistically erroneous interpretation of διότε condemns also
the view of Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, and Reithmayr, who discover here
the proof, that the Gentiles keep down the truth by immorality ; or (so Th.
Schott) that Paul rightly describes them as κατέχοντες κιτ.Δ. No; for the
very reason that they have the γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Which renders them iénexrcus-
able, does the wrath of God go forth against the κατέχοντες ; ver. 18. —rd
γνωστὸν tov Θεοῦ] that which is known concerning God, not: that which is
knowable concerning God, a signification which, though adopted by Origen,
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Piscator, Estius,
Grotius, Wolf, Koppe, Riickert, Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier,
Ewald, Umbreit, Mehring, Hofmann, and others, is never conveyed by γνωστός
in the N. T. or in the LXX. and Apocrypha, though it frequently occurs in
classic authors.’ In all the places where it occurs in the Scriptures, as also,
though less frequently, in the classics,? it means quod notum est (Vulgate),
and is therefore equivalent to γνωτός or γνώριμος, also in Acts iv. 16 ; Eccles.
xxi. 7. The opposite: ἄγνωστος, Acts xvii. 23. Comp. Luther, 1545:
“das (nicht : dass) man weiss, das (nicht : dass) Gott sei.” That which is
known of God excludes that which needed a special revelation to make it
known, as in particular the contents of the Gospel ; the former is derived
from the general revelation of nature. If we should take γνωστόν as know-
able, the assertion of the Apostle would be incorrect without some limiting
qualification ; for the positively revealed belonged to that which was know-
able, but not to that which was known of God,* into which category it was
brought only through special revelation, which it would otherwise not have
needed. —év αὐτοῖς] i.e. in their consciousness, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, 11. 15.
Comp. Gal. i. 16. The explanation inter ipsos, which Erasmus and Grotius
(both referring it arbitrarily to the Gnosis of the philosophers among the
Gentiles), K6llIner and Baumgarten-Crusius give, is to be rejected for this
reason, that αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε, compared with νοούμενα καθορᾶται, points to a
manifestation of the γνωστόν τοῦ Θεοῦ which is inward, although conveyed
through the revelation of nature. — ἐφανέρωσε] God—and this subject is

1 See the passages from Plato quoted by
Ast, Zex. I. p. 401; Dorvill. ad Charit. p.
502; Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. T. 361; comp.
ἄγνωστος, which in Plato invariably means
unknowable.

2Xen. Cyr. vi. 3, 4: Arrian. pict. ii. 20,
4; Aesch. Choeph. 702; Beck, Antiatt. p. 87,
25:

3 Which, however, is not to be trans-
formed, with Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl,
and others, into the subjective scientia Dei

—which has no precedent in usage, is un-
suitable to the following φανερόν ἐστι, and
is not to be supported even by the LXX.
Gen. ii. 9; in which passage, if the text be
not corrupted, τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστόν
καλοῦ κ. πονηροῦ must be rendered : the tree
by which they were to learn what is known
of good and evil, 7.e. by which they were to
become aware of that which they—by the
very enjoyment—had known of good and
evil.

58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

again named with emphasis—ias laid it clearly before them, made it lie
openly before their view as an object of knowledge. Comp. on the matter
itself Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 26 f. ; 1 Cor. i. 21.

Ver. 20 f. Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα. . . . θειότης] Giving a reason for, and explain-
ing, the previous ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε. --- τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ] His invisible
things, the manifold invisible attributes, that constitute His nature. [See
Note XI. p. 77.] Paul himself explains it afterwards by ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις
καὶ θειότης ; therefore it is not actiones Dei invisibiles (Fritzsche ; comp.
Theodoret). —vootyeva καθορᾶται] through the works are scen becoming dis-
cerned ; νοούμενα Aefines the manner in which the καθορᾶται takes place,
otherwise than through the senses (the νοεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὄμμασι θεωρεῖν, Plat.
Rep. p. 529 B), in so far as it is effected by means of mental discernment, by
the agency of intelligent perception. The καθορᾶται forms with ἀόρατα a strik-
ing oxymoron, in which the compound selected for that purpose, but not
elsewhere occurring in the N. T., heightens still further the idea conveyed
by the simple form.*— τοῖς ποιήμασι] embraces all that God as Creator has
produced, but does not at the same time include His governing in the world
of history, as Schneckenburger thinks, Beitr. p. 102 f.; for NWN, with
which ποίημα corresponds (LXX. Eccles. iii. 11, vii. 18, al.), is the formal
expression for God’s works of creation ; as also Paul himself, in Eph. ii. 10,
describes the renewing of man as analogous to creation. It is only of the
works of creation that the Apostle could assert what he here says, especially:
Since, moreover, τοῖς ποιήμασι, by means of
the works, contains the instrumental definition appended to νοούμενα καθορᾶται,
ἀπὸ κτίσ. κόσμου cannot be taken in a causal sense (see Winer, p. 348 [E. T.
9107), as the mediwm cognoscendi (so' Luther and many others, including
- Calovius, Pearson, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Morus, and Reithmayr), but
only in the sense of temporal beginning : since the creation of the world
they are so perceived. —# Te ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ div. x. θειότης] A more precise
definition of the previous τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. ’ Aidsoc, everlasting, belongs to
both substantives ; but «ai annexes the general term, the category, of which
the δύναμις is a species. See Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 80. Its relation to the
preceding τέ consists in its completing the climax and cumulation, for
which τέ prepares the way. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 98. Hofmann is un-
supported by linguistic usage in inferring from the position of τέ, that ἀΐδιος
is not meant to apply also to θειότης. It is just that position that makes
ἀΐδιος the common property of both members (see especially Hartung, /.c. p.
116 f.), so that, in order to analyze the form of the conception, we may again
supply ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ after καὶ. The θειότης is the totality of that which

as he adds ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου.

1Comp, Xen. Cyr. iii. 8, 31: εἰ yao. .
ἡμᾶς οἱ πολέμιοι θεάσονται. . . . πάλιν καθο-
Pind. Pyth. ix. 45. :
On the oxymoron
itself, comp. Aristotle, de mundo, 6, p. 399,
21. Bekk: ἀθεώρητος ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων
θεωρεῖται (ὃ θεός).

2Not merely to νοούμενα (Hofmann),
which is closely bound up with καθορᾶται as

ρῶντες ἡμῶν TO πλῆθος.

οἷσθα.. .. εὖ καθορᾷς.

showing the manner of it, so that both
together are defined instrumentally by tots
ποιήμασι. On νοεῖν, aS denoting the intel-
lectual animadvertere in seeing (Hom. 124. A.
599, in the inverse position: τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν
ἐνόησε), comp. Nigelsb. z. Jdias, Ὁ. 416, ed. 3;
Duncan, ed. Rost, p. 787.

3 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 48 B.;
Schaefer, Poet. gnom. p. 73; Schoemann,

CHAP. I., 20. 59
God is as a Being possessed of divine attributes, as Aeov,—the collective sum
of the divine realities.! This comprehensive sense must by no means be lim-
ited. The eternal power—this aspect of His θειότης which comes into prom-
inence at first and before all others—and the divinity of God in its collect-
ive aspect, are rationally perceived and discerned by means of His works.
Arbitrary is the view of Reiche, who holds that Paul means especially
wisdom and goodness, which latter Schneckenburger conceives to be intended ;
and also that of Hofmann (comparing Acts xvii. 29; 2 Pet. i. 4), that the
spiritual nature of the divine being is denoted. We may add that Rickert
holds the strange view, that θειότης, which could not properly be predicated
of God, is only used here by Paul for want of another expression. It might
be and was necessarily said of God, as being the only adequate comprehensive
expression for the conception that was to be denoted thereby. For analo-
gous references to the physico-theological knowledge of God, see Wetstein,
and Spiess, Logos spermaticos, 1871, Ὁ. 212. The suggestion of Philo as the

ge
Apostle’s scource (Schneckenburger) is out of the question. Observe

further how completely, in our passage, the transcendental relation of God to ~

the world—the negation of all identity of the two—lies at the foundation
of the Apostle’s view. It does not exclude the immanence of God in the
world, but it excludes all pantheism. See the passages from the Ὁ. T. dis-
cussed in Umbreit. —ei¢ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολ.] has its logically correct ref-
erence to the immediately preceding τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα . . . . θειότης, and there-
fore the parenthesis, in which Griesbach and others have placed τὰ yap ἀόρ.
. . νον θειότης, must be expunged. The εἰς cannot be said of the result, as
Luther, and many others, including Reiche, K6llner, de Wette; Riickert,
Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, Ewald, following the Vulgate (fa ut sint
inexcusabiles), have understood it ; for the view, which takes it of the pur-
pose, is not only required by the prevailing usage of εἰς with the infinitive?
(see on 2 Cor. viii. 6), but is also more appropriate to the connection, because
the καθορᾶται is conceived as a result effected through God’s revelation of
Himself (ver. 19), and consequently the idea of the divine purpose in εἰς τὸ
εἶναι k.7.A. ig not to be arbitrarily dismissed. Comp. Erasmus (‘‘ne quid
haberent,” etc.), Melanchthon (‘‘ propter quas causas Deus,” ete.), Beza, Calvin
(“ὧν hoe ut’), Bengel, and others. But Chrysostom, even in his time, ex-
pressly opposes this view (comp. also Oecumenius), and at a later period it

ad 75. p. 325 f.; also Winer,
559].
10n the difference between this word

p. 520) [ἘΞ 1 Appropriately rendered in Vulgate by d-
vinitas.

2 Kis, with an infinitive having the article,

and θεότης (Col. ii. 9), which denotes Deitas,
Godhead, the being God, see Elsner, Odss. p
6, and Fritzsche in foc. Van Hengel has er-
roneously called in question the distinction.
In Wisd. xviii. 9, namely, ὁ τῆς θειότητος
νόμος is not the law of the Godhead, but the
law whose nature and character is divinity
—of a divine kind; and in Lucian, de
Calumn. 17, ἡ Ηφαιστίωνος θειότης is the di-
vinity of Hephaestion, his divine quality.
In Plutarch θειότης very frequently occurs.

is not used in a single passage, of the Epistle
to the Romans in particular, in any other
than a ¢elic sense. Seei. 11, iii. 26, iv. 11, 16,
18, vi. 12, vii. 4, 5, viii. 29, xi. 11, xii. 2, 3, xv.
8, 18,16. Far too hastily de Wette terms this
interpretation in our passage senseless,
and Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with him.
Tholuck calls it grammatical terrorism.
Hofmann recognizes the telic view as the
true one in all cases where εἰς is used with
the infinitive.

00 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

became a subject of contention between the Lutherans and the Reformed.
See Calovius. The view, which interprets it of the result, hesitates to admit
the conception of a divine decree, under which Paul places the inexcusable-
ness of men ; and yet not only may this stand to the perception of God from
His works which has existed since the beginning in the relation of result,
but, in accordance with the thoroughly Scriptural idea of destiny (comp.
6.0. V. 20), it must stand to it in the relation of that decree. In this con-
nection, which inserts the results in the divine counsel, the inexcusableness
of man appears as telically given with the self-manifestation of God. Ver. 21,
as in general even ver. 18, contains the perverse conduct of men manifesting
itself in the course of human history, on account of which God, who foresaw
it, has in His natural self-manifestation made their inexcusableness His aim.
Inexcusable they are intended to be ; and that indeed on account of the fact,
that, although they had known God (namely from that natural revelation), they
have not glorified Him as God. — διότι] as in ver. 19, only to be separated by
a comma from what precedes : inexcusable on this account, because. [See
Note XII. p. 78,]—yvévrec] not : cum agnoscere potwissent (Flatt, Nielsen ;
also as early as Oecumenius) ; nor yet : although they knew God, so that it
would be contemporaneous with οὐχ . .. . ἐδόξασαν. So Philippi and van
Hengel ; also Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. Ὁ. 846. They had attained the
knowledge from the revelation of nature (for to this, according to vv. 19,
20, we must refer it, and not, with Rickert, to the history in Genesis of the
original revelation), but only actu directo, so far as that same sclf-manifesta-
tion of God had presented itself objectively to their cognition ; the actus
reflecus remained absent (comp. Delitzsch, Ὁ. 347), and with them who
keep down the truth ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, ver. 18, the issue was not to the praise of
God, ete. ; so that γνόντες is thus previous to the οὐχ. . . . ἐδόξασαν. Paul
sets forth the historical emergence of that for which they were inexcusable.
They had known God, and yet it happened that they did not praise Him,
etc. —ovy ὡς Θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ niyap.| It would have been becoming for them
to have rendered to God as such, agreeably to His known nature, praise and
thanks ; but they did neither the one nor the other. Regarding ὡς in the
sense : according to the measure of His divine quality, comp. on John 1. 14.
The praising and thanksgiving exhaust the notion of the adoration, which
they should have offered to God. —aawv ἐματ. ἐν τοῖς διαλ. αὐτῶν] but they
were frustrated in their thoughts (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 20), so that the concep-
tions, ideas, and reflections, which they formed for themselves regarding
the Deity, were wholly devoid of any intrinsic value corresponding with the
truth. Comp. Eph. iv. 17. The ματαιότης is a specific attribute of heathen-
ism. Jer. ii. 5; 2 Kings xvii. 5; Ps. xciv. 11. Comp. also Acts xiv. 15 ;
Judith νἱ. 4. -- καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη x.7.A.] forms a climax to the foregoing. Comp.
Eph. iv. 18, i. 18. Their heart that had been rendered by the ἐματαιώθησαν
unintelligent, incapable of discerning the true and right, became dark,
completely deprived of the light of the divine ἀλήθεια that had come to
them by the revelation of nature. καρδία, like 32, denotes the whole internal
scat of life, the power which embraces all the activity of reason and will
within the personal consciousness. Comp. on Eph, i. 18 ; Delitzsch, p. 250.

CHAP. I., 22, 23. 61

To take ἀσύνετος here in a proleptic sense (see on Matt. xii. 18) is quite inap-
propriate, because it destroys the climax. Comp. moreover on ἀσύνετος,
Wisd. xi. 15; as also on the entire delineation of Gentile immorality, ver.
20 ff. ; Wisd. xiiixv. This passage as a whole, and in its details, pre-
sents unmistakable reminiscences of this section of the book of Wisdom.’
Without reason Tholuck argues against this view.

Vv. 22, 23. In a false conceit of wisdom (comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff.) this took
place (viz. what has just been announced in ἐματαιώθησαν . . « καρδία), and
what a horrible actual result it had !— The construction is independent, no
longer hanging on the διότε in ver. 21 (Gléckler, Ewald); the further
course of the matter is described. While they said that they were wise (comp.
1 Cor. iii. 21), they became foolish. Comp. Jer. x. 24 f. This becoming
foolish must be understood as something sel/-incwrred—produced through
the conceit of independence—as is required by the description of God’s
retribution on them in ver. 24 ; therefore the ‘‘ dirigente Deo,” which Grotius
understands along with it in accordance with 1 Cor. i, 21, is here foreign to
the connection. The explanation of Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others, including Usteri : ‘‘ they have shown, themselves as fools,” is erroneous,
because the aorist passive in ver. 21 does not admit of a similar rendering.
—For examples of φάσκειν, dictitwre, in the sense of unfounded assertion
(Acts xxiv. 9, xxv. 19; Rev. 11. 2), see Raphel, Xenoph. and Kypke.
Comp. Dem. Phil. i. 46, iii. 9 ; Herodian, ii. 12, 9. Their pretended
wisdom was a μάταιος δοξοσοφία, Plat. Soph. p. 231 B. We may add that
this definition is not aimed at the Gentile philosophers, who came much later,
and in fact did not do what is declared in ver. 23 (comp. Calvin), but gen-
erally at the conceit of wisdom (1 Cor. i. 21), which is necessarily connected
with an estrangement from divine truth, and from which therefore idolatry
also, with its manifold self-invented shapes, must have proceeded. For
heathenism is not the primeval religion, from which man might gradually
have risen to the knowledge of the true God, but is, on the contrary, the
result of a falling away from the known original revelation of the true
God in His works. Instead of the practical recognition and preservation
of the truth thus given comes the self-wisdom rendering them foolish,
and idolatry in its train. —«al ἤλλαξ. «.7.2.] and they exchanged the maj-
esty of the imperishable God for a likeness of an image of a perishable man,
etc., i.e. instead of making, as they ought to have done, the glory of the
eternal God manifested to them in the revelation of nature—W7) 133, i.e.
His glorious perfection (ver. 20)—the object of their adoration, they chose
for that purpose what was shaped like an image of ὦ perishable man, etc. 5
comp. Ps. cvi. 20; Jer. ii, 11. The ἐν (comp. Ecclus. vii. 18) is instru-
mental, as is elsewhere the simple dative (Herod. vii. 152 ; Soph. Niob. fr.
400, Dind.) : thereby, that they made and adored such an ὁμοίωμα, and on
the other hand rejected the glory of God, which they ought to have wor-
shipped. Comp. LXX. Ps. 1.6. ; ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι
μόσχου." Itis not mere similarity, but conformity with the object of compari-

1 See Nitzsch in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1850, 2 On the genitive εἰκόνος comp. also 1 Mace.
Ῥ. 387 ; Bleek in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1858, Ὁ. 8401, ἢ]. 48; Rev. ix: 7; and on ὁμοίωμα itself in

7
<

62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

son concerned as agreeing therewith in appearance.'— καὶ rerewv. k. τετραπ. K.
épz.| No doubt as Paul, in using ἀνθρώπου, thought of the forms of the
Hellenic gods, so in zerevv. «.7.4. he had in his mind the Egyptian worship
of animals (Ibis, Apis, serpents).? We may add that, like the previous
φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the genitives πετεινῶν x.7.A. are dependent on εἰκόνος, not on
ὁμοιώματι (van Hengel), which is less natural and not required by the singu-
lar εἰκόνος, that in fact refers to each particular instance in which a man,
birds, etc. were copied for purposes of divine adoration by means of statues
and other representations.

Ver. 24. Wherefore (as a penal retribution for their apostasy) God also gave
them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. [See Note XIII. p. 78.] καὶ,
also, indicates the giving up as a thing corresponding to the guilt, Comp.
on Phil. 11. 9. ---ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. τ. x. αὐτ.] contains that, in which they were in-
volved, i.e. the moral condition in which they were found when they were
given up by God to impurity. Comp. ver. 27 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; Bernhardy, p.
209. The instrumental rendering (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Gléckler, and
Krehl) is unnecessary, because the immediate literal sense of év is quite suf-
ficient, and the former is less suitable as to sense, since it conveys something
which is obvious of itself. — παρέδωκεν) expresses the real active giving up
on the part of God. The favourite explanation of it by εἴασε, so often resort-
ed to since Origen and Chrysostom, is nothing but a rationalizing gloss at
variance with the literal meaning. To the Apostle God is the living God,
who does not passively permit the retributive consequences of fidelity or of
apostasy—thus, as it were, letting them run their course, as an artificer does
with his wheel work—but Himself, everywhere active, pervades and effect-
ively develops the arrangements which He has made. If then God has so
arranged that man by apostasy from Him should fall into moral impurity,
and that thus sin shall be punished by sin (and this connection of sin with
sin is in accordance both with experience and Scripture, Is. vi.10 ; Job viii.
4; Ps. lxix. 28, lxxxi. 13 ; Mark iv. 12), this arrangement can only be car-
ried out in reality through the effective action of its originator ; and God
Himself must give up the apostates unto impurity, inasmuch as it is by His
doing that that moral connection is in point of fact accomplished.* Con-
sequently, if the understanding of παρέδωκεν in its strictly proper and posi-
tive meaning is quite in keeping with the universal agency of God, in His
physical and moral government of the world, without, however, making
God appear as the author of sin, which, on the contrary, has its root in the

the sense of likeness, v. 14, vi. 5, viii. 3;
Phil. ii. 7; Ecclus. xxxvili. 28 ; 2 Kings xvi.

Dougtaeus, Anal. 69, p. 102, Grotius and
Wetstein.

10; Isa. xl. 18; 1 Sam. vi. 5; Plat. Phaedr.
p. 250 A; Parm. Ὁ. 182 D.

1 See also Holsten, z. Hv. des Paul. u. Petr.
p. 440; Pfleidererin Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. Ὁ.
523 f.

2 Philo. Leg. ad. Caj. p. 566, 570. For
passages from profane authors respecting
the folly (at which the $@aprod here also
points) of image-worship, see especially

3Comp. Acts vii. 42; Rom. ix. 19; also
2 Thess. ii. 11 f.; and the rabbinical passages
quoted by Schoettgen, especially from Pirke
Aboth, c. 4: ‘‘Festina ad praeceptum ijeve
tanquam ad grave, et fuge transgressionem;
praeceptum enim trahit praeceptum ct
transgressio transgressionem : quia merces
praecepti praeceptum est, et transgressionis
transgressio.

CHAP. I., 24. 63

ἐπιθυμίαι τ. kapd., We must reject as insufficient the privative interpretation *
that became current after Augustine and Oecumenius, which Calovius has
adopted in part, and Riickert chanel Comp. Philippi, who thinks of the
withdrawal of the Divine Spirit and its results, though in the sense of a posi-
tive divine infliction of punishment. This withdrawal, through which man
is left in the lurch by God, is the immediate negative precursor of the rapé-
δωκεν (Eeclus. iv. 19). Reiche thinks that Paul here avails himself, with more
or less consciousness of its being erroneous, of the general view of the Jews
regarding the origin of the peculiar wickedness of the Gentiles (Ps. ΠΣ
18 ; Prov. xxi. 8; Ecclus. iv. 19; Wisd. x. 12, xiii. 1; Acts vii. 42) 5 an
that this representation of moral ae avity asa divine ἐπ ετ is to be Ἢ
tinguished from the Christian doctrinal system of the Apostle. But how very
inconsistent it is with the character of Paul thus consciously to bring forward
what is erroneous, and that too with so solemn a repetition (vv. 26, 28) And
is it not an arrangement accordant with experience, that apostasy from God
is punished by an ever deeper fall into immorality ? Can this arrangement,
made as it is by God ‘‘ justo judicio” (Calvin), be carried out otherwise than
by God? Analogous are even heathen sayings, such as Aesch. Agam. 764
ff., and the heathen idea of the θεοβλάβεια." But just as man, while his
fidelity is rewarded by God through growth in virtue, remains withal free
and does not become a virtuous machine ; so also he retains his freedom,
while God accomplishes the development of His arrangement, in accordance
with which gin is born of sin. He gives himself up (Eph. iv. 19), while he
is given up by God to that tragic nexus of moral destiny ; and he becomes
no machine of sin, but possesses at every moment the capacity of μετάνοια,
which the very reaction resulting from the feeling of the most terrible mis-
ery of sin—punished through sin—is designed to produce. Therefore, on the
one hand, man always remains responsible for his deterioration (ver. 32, ii. 6,
iii. 5, vii. 14) ; and, on the other, that punishment of sin, in which the teleo-
logical law of the development of evil fulfils itself, includes no contradiction
of the holiness of God. For this reason the view of Kéllner—that the Apos-
tle’s idea is to be separated from its Jewish and temporal form, and that we
must assume as the Christian truth in it, that the apostasy of men from God
has brought them into deepest misery, as certainly as the latter is self-inflict-
ed—is a superfluous unexegetical evasion, to which Fritzsche also has re-
course. — ἀκαθαρσίαν] spurcitia, impurity, and that lustful (comp. Gal. v. 19 ;
Eph. iv. 19 ; Col. iii. 5), as is plain from the following context ; not gen-
erally : ‘all action and conduct dishonouring the creaturely glory of man”
(Hofmann). The τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι may be taken either as the genitive of the
purpose : that they might be dishonoured (Riickert, Philippi, van Hengel),

1 Τῷ is at bottom identical with the per-
missive rendering. Therefore Chrysostom
not only explains it by εἴασεν, but illustrates
the matter by the instance of a general who
leaves his soldiers in the battle, and thus
deprives them of his aid, and abandons
them to the enemy. Theodoret explains

it: τῆς οἰκείας προμηθείας ἐγύμνωσε, and em-
ploys the comparison of an abandoned ves-
sel. Theophylact illustrates the παρέδωκεν
by the example of a physician who gives
up a refractory patient (παραδίδωσιν αὐτὸν
τῷ ἐπὶ πλέον νοσεῖν).

2 Comp. also Ruhnken, ad Vellej. ii. 57, 8.

64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

or as the genitive of more precise definition depending on ἀκαθαρσ. (impurity
of the becoming dishonoured, t.e. which consisted therein ; so Fritzsche, Winer,
Tholuck, and de Wette). The latter’ is the more probable, partly because
the ἀτιμάζεσϑαι «.7.A. already constitutes the impurity itself, and does not
merely attend it as a result ; and partly on account of the parallel in ver.
28, where ποιεῖν x.7.A. is likewise eperegetical. ἀτιμάζεσϑαι is not however the
middle, whereby the αὐτοπαϑές would be expressed, for which there is no
empirical usage, but the passive: that their bodies were dishonoured among
themselves, mutually. This ἐν ἑαυτοῖς refers to the persons (αὐτῶν, not to be
written αὑτῶν), not asserting that the ἀτιμάζεσϑαι takes place on themselves,
which is in fact already conveyed by τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν," but rather based on
the nature of participation in unchastity, according to which they bring one
on the other reciprocally the dishonouring of the body. In this personal reci-
procity of those who practise unchastity with each other lies the character-
istic abominableness of the dishonouring of the body ; and this point is des-
ignated by ἐν ἑαυτοῖς more expressly, because in contrast to non-participating
third persons, than it would have been by ἐν aaagaow.* —The vices of un-
chastity, which moreover are still here referred to quite generally (it is other-
wise in ver. 26 f.), and not specially as unnatural, according to their dis-
graceful nature, in whatever forms they may have been practised, are specifi-
cally heathen (in fact, even partially belonging to the heathen ecultws), as a
consequence of apostasy from the true God (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5). As they
again prevail even among Christians, wherever this apostasy spreads through
unbelief, they must verify even in Christendom their heathen nature, and,
along with the likewise essentially heathen πλεονεξία, pre-eminently exclude
from the salvation of the Messiah (Eph. v. 5 f.; Col. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f.).
—With ἀτιμάζ. τ. σώμ. compare the opposite, 1 Thess. iv. 4, where τὸ ἑαυτοῦ
σκεῦος must be explained of the body as the vessel of the Ego proper.

Ver. 25. Οἵτενες μετήλλαξαν κ.τ.}.} as those who exchanged, etc. In this de-
scription of the character of those who are given up, attached to ver. 24,
Paul makes once more apparent the motive which determined God to give
them up. The words are a renewed tragic commentary (comp. vv. 22, 238)
on the διό, ver. 24. On ὅστις, guippe qui, which brings up the class to which
one belongs, and thereby includes the specification of the reason, see Her-
mann, ad Soph. Oed. R. 688 ; Matthiae, p. 1073. Hofmann erroneously
makes a relative protasis begin with οἵτινες, with which then διὰ τοῦτο x.7.A.,
ver. 26, would be connected by way of apodosis : them, who exchanged, etc.,
God has therefore given up. This would not be inconsistent with αὐτούς in
ver. 26, which would then be resumptive ; but the very praise of God, in
which ver. 25 terminates, and still more the concluding ἀμήν, which can only
indicate the end of the sentence (comp. ix. 5, xi. 86 ; Gal. i. 5 ; Eph. iii.

1See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 280 f. [E. T. semet ipsis. With the reading ἐν αὐτοῖς we

268].

2 Hofmann refers the reading which he
follows, ἐν αὐτοῖς, to the σώματα, but ex-
plains this: the body of each person in
himself ; consequently, as if the expression
were ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, and that in the sense in

should rather render it simply: in order
that among them (i.e. in their common inter-
course) their bodies should be dishonoured.
Such was to be the course of things among
them.

3 Kiihner ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 20.

CHAP. I., 25. 65

21), ought to have decidedly precluded such a forced intermixture of sen-
tences, which is not to be justified by subtleties. — The compound μετήλλ.
(exchanged) is more significant than ἤλλαξαν (changed) in ver. 23. — τὴν ἀλήϑ.
τοῦ Θεοῦ] to be taken entirely in harmony with the expression τὴν δόξαν τοῦ
Θεοῦ in ver. 23; therefore τοῦ Θεοῦ is to be taken as genitive of the subject :
the truth of God, the true divine reality,* so as to make it in point of actual
meaning, though not in the abstract form of the conception, identical with :
“true God” (Luther, and most expositors, including Riickert, de Wette,
Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel). It is differently rendered by
Wolf, whom Kdllner follows: the truth revealed to the Gentiles by God.
Reiche and Mehring (following Pareus, Camerarius, Estius, Seb. Schmid,
and Cramer) take it as the true knowledge of God, so that Θεοῦ would be geni-
tive of the object. Compare Piscator, Usteri, and Glickler, who understand
by it the original consciousness of God. Opposed to these views is the exact
parallel in which ver. 25 stands to ver. 23, so that τοῦ Θεοῦ ought not to be
taken without necessity as having a different reference in the two verses.
τὴν ἀλήϑ. τ. Θεοῦ is explained concretely by τὸν κτίσαντα in the second half of
the verse. — ἐν τῷ ψεύδει] with the lie ; ἐν as in ver. 23. By this Paul means,
in contrast to τὴν ἀλήϑ. τ. Θεοῦ (but otherwise than in iii. 7), the false
gods, which are κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the ψεῦδος in conereto, the negation of the truth
of God. Comp. on 1 Cor. viii. 4 f., x. 20. Grotius has aptly said: ‘‘ pro
Deo vero sumserunt imaginarios.” ?— καὶ ἐσεβάσϑησαν. . . . κτίσαντα] More
precise explanation of the first clause of the verse. — ἐσεβ. k. éAatp.| The
former is general (coluerunt), the latter took place through sacrifices, and
other definite rites and services; hence Paul designates his own specific
service of God in ver. 8 by λατρεύω. σεβάζομαι, in Homer : to be afraid of (Ll.
vi. 167, 417), is employed in the later Greek like σέβομαι in the sense to
revere, Orph. Arg. 550, Aq. Hos. x. 5. In the N. T. it only occurs here. —
τῇ κτίσει] Corresponding with the verb standing next to it, so that the ac-
cusative is to be supplied with éceB. See Matthiae, ὃ 428, 2. — παρὰ τ. κτί-
σαντα] in the sense of comparison: prae creatore, in which case the context
alone decides whether the preference of the one before the other is only
relative, or whether it excludes the latter altogether (see on Luke xviii. 14 ;
and van Hengel on our passage). The second case is that which occurs
here, in accordance both with the nature of the case, seeing that the Gen-
tiles did not worship the Creator at all, and with the immediate connection
(μετήλλαξαν. . . . ἐν τῷ ψεύδε). The sense therefore substantially amounts
to praeterito creatore (Hilary), or relicto creatore (Cyprian), i.e. they honoured.
the creature and not the Creator, whom they ought to have honoured.
Theophylact says aptly, with reference to the comparative παρά : ἐκ τῆς ovy-
κρίσεως τὸ ἔγκλημα ἐπαίρων. So in substance also Beza, Estius, and others,
including Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Krehl, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel. The relative interpretation :

1 Not ‘the truth, which God Himself 48)" of His δόξα.
(Hofmann) ; but that, which God is in true 2 Comp. Is. xliv. 20; Jer. iii. 10, xiii. 25,
reality. Thatis just the adequate substance xvi. 19, αἰ. ; Philo, vit. Mos. p. 678 C, 679 A.

66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

more than the Creator (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Ammon,
Riickert, and others), is therefore in point of fact erroneous. The contra
ereatorem, which Hammond, Koppe, Flatt, Fritzsche, and Mehring find
here, may likewise be traced to the sense of comparison,’ but has against it
the fact, that in the whole context Paul presents the matter in the light of
a μετάλλαξις, of an exchanging the true for the false, not of hostility to the
true. From that point of view the Gentiles have worshipped the creature,
and not the Creator. Quite parallel is rap’ ἐκεῖνον in Luke, xviii. 14, Lachm.
— The doxology : who is praised, })12, not : celebrandus (comp. on Eph. i.
3; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Mark xiv. 61), for ever! Amen,—is a natural effusion of
deeply-moved piety, called forth by the detestable contrast of the Gentile
abominations just described, without any further special design (Koppe :
‘‘ne ipse in majestatem divinam injurius videri possit :)) comp. Tholuck).
Vv. 26. 27. Διὰ τοῦτο] Beginning an independent sentence (against Hof-
mann, see on ver. 25), refers to the description οἵτινες. . . .
tained in ver. 25. The giving up is set forth once more (comp. ver. 24, διό)
as the punishment of apostasy, and now indeed with such increasing force
of delineation, that out of the category which is kept quite general in ver.
24 unnatural sensual abominations are specially adduced. — εἰς πάϑη ἀτιμίας]
Genitive of quality.? Parallel to the passions of a disgraceful character is
εἰς ἀκαϑαρσίαν in ver. 24; comp. Col. iii. 5; but the stronger expression
here selected prepares the way for the following description of a pecul-
iarly abominable form of vice. Still the wnnatural element is not implied
in πάϑη ἀτιμίας itself (Hofmann: they are a dishonouring, not merely
of the body, but of ““ hwmanity’’), since morally dishonouring passions are
the agents, not only in the case of unnatural, but also in that of natural
unchastity.* — The expressions ϑήλειαι and ἄρσενες, their females and their
males, not γυναῖκες and ἄνδρες, are chosen because the predominant point
of view is simply that of sex; Reiche thinks: out of contempt, because
the words would also be used of beasts; but in fact, such unnatural
things are foreign to the very beasts. Besides, the words are used even
of the gods (Homer, 71. viii. 7, and frequently). — rv φυσικὴν χρῆσιν) of
their sex, not: of the male, which is unsuitable to the vice indicated.
Regarding χρῆσις in the sense of sexual use, see Wetstein and Kypke, also
Coray, ad Heliodor. Aeg., p. 31.4—That ὁμοίως δὲ καί after the preceding
τέ makes the latter an anakoluthon, is commonly assumed, but altogether
without foundation, because in τὲ γάρ the τέ does not necessarily require any

κτίσαντα COn-

Schoettgen, Hor. in loc.) was the so-called
Lesbian vice, λεσβιάζειν (Lucian, D. Mer. 5.

1See Bernhardy, p. 259; Winer, p. 377
[E. T. 404]; and the passages from Plato in

Ast. 1.65. III. p. 28.

2 Comp. on πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in ver. 4, and
Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 21.

3 Respecting τὲ yap, namgue, for...
indeed (vii. 7 ; 2 Cor. x. 8), see Hermann, σα
Soph. Trach. 1015; Hartung, I. p. 115; Klotz,
ad Devar. p. 749 ff.

4 How very prevalent among the Gentiles
(it was found also among the Jews, see

1), women with women abusing their sex
(tribades, in Tertullian jvrictrices), see Sal-
masius, foen. Trapez. Ὁ. 143 f., 152 f. ; and the
commentators on Ael. V. ZZ. iii. 19. Comp.
the ἑταιρίστριαι in Plat. Symp. Ὁ. 191 EH, and
the ἀσέλγεια τριβακή in Luc. Amor. 28; and
see Ruhnken. ad Tim. p. 124, and generally
Rosenbaum, Gesch. d. Lustseucheim Alterth.
ed. 2, 1845.

CHAP. I., 28. 67

correlative. See Klotz 1.5. If it were put correlatively, we should have
in ὁμοίως δὲ καί the other corresponding member really present (as is actually
the case, e.g. in Plat. Symp. p. 186 E), which however would in that case
inappropriately stand out with greater emphasis and weight than the former.’
The reading ré (instead of dé) in Elz., as well as the entire omission of the
particle (C, min., Origen, Jerome), is a too hasty emendation.
Stronger than the simple form.? Such a state is the πυροῦσϑαι in 1 Cor.
vii. 9. Moreover, Paul represents here not the heat that precedes the act of
unchastity, but that which is kindled in the act itself (κατεργαζόμενοι . .

arrohauBdvovtec). — ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι] whilst they, males on males, performed the
(known, from ver. 26) wnseemliness. On the emphatic juxtaposition of dpe.
ἐν ἄρσ. comp. generally Lobeck, ad Aj. 522, and in particular Porphyr. de
abstin. iv. 20 ; and Wetstein in loc. On κατεργάζεσϑαι, which is used both of
evil (ii. 9, vii. 9, xv. 17 1.) and good (v. 8, xv. 18; Phil. ii. 12), but which,
as distinguished from ἐργάζεσϑαι, always expresses the bringing to pass, the
accomplishment, comp. especially ii. 9, and van Hengel thereon ; 1 Cor. v.
3; 2 Cor. vii. 10, and the critical remarks thereon. On ἀσχημ. see Gen.
χχχίν. 7. --- τὴν ἀντιμισϑίαν «.7.A.] The aberration, which Paul means, see in
vy. 21-23, 28 ; it is the aberration from God to idols, not that implied in the
sexual perversion of the divine order (Hofmann), which perversion, on the con-
trary, is brought by διό in ver. 24, and by διά τοῦτο in ver. 26, under the
point of view of penal retribution for the πλάνη. By the recompense for the
πλάνη Paul does not at all mean that the men ‘‘ have that done to them by
their fellows, which they themselves do to theirs” (Hofmann), but rather, in har-
mony with the connection of cause and effect, the abominable wnnatural
lusts just described, to which God has given up the Gentiles, and thereby,
in recompensing godlessness through such wicked excesses (ver. 18), re-
vealed His ὀργή. Therefore also ἣν ἔδει is added, namely, in accordance
with the necessity of the holy divine order. See vv. 24, 26, 28. On ἀντι-
μισϑία comp. 2 Cor. vi. 13 ; Clem. Cor. Il. 1. It occurs neither in Greek
authors, who have the adjective ἀντίμισϑος (Aesch. Suppl. 273), nor in the
LXX. or Apocrypha. —év ἑαυτοῖς] on themselves mutually (ἐν ἀλλήλοις), as in
ver. 24. It enhances the sadness of the description. For a number of pas-
sages attesting the prevalence of unchastity between man and man, espe-
cially of paederastia among the Gentiles, particularly the Greeks (it was for-
bidden to the Jews in Lev. xviii. 22), see Becker, Charikl. I. p. 346 ff. ;
Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29; Bernhardy, Griech. Lit. ed. 2, p. 50 ff.
Moreover, Bengel aptly observes regarding the whole of this unreserved ex-
posure of Gentile unchastity : ‘‘ In peccatis arguendis saepe scapha debet

ἐξεκαύϑησαν]

1 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Polit. p. 270 D, Rep.
p. 867 C; Dissen. ad Pind. Ol. viii. 56;
Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. p. 199. Hof-
mann thinks that with ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ x.7.A.
the argument ascends fo the greater danger
Sor the continuance of the human race. But
that is a purely imported thought. The
Apostle’s point of view isthe moral ἀτιμία,
which, in the case of female depravity,

comes out most glaringly. And therefore
Paul, in order to cast the most tragic light
possible on these conditions, puts the brief
delineation of female conduct in the fore-
ground, in order then symmetrically to
subjoin, with ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ, the male vice as
the second part of the filthy category.

2 Comp. Alciphr. iii. 67; ἐξεκαύθην els ἔρωτα.

08 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS,

scapha dici. Pudorem praeposterum ii fere postulant, qui pudicitia
carent. . . . Gravitas et ardor stili judicialis proprietate verborum non
violat verecundiam, ” Observe, nevertheless, how the Apostle delineates
the female dishonour in less concrete traits than the male. He touches the
matter in ver. 26 briefly and clearly enough, but with delicate avoidance of
detailed description.

Ver. 28. From the previous exclusive description of the sensual vice of
the Gentiles, Paul now proceeds to a summary enumeration of yet other
vices to which they had been given up by God in punishment of their apos-
tasy. —xa¥ac]| is not causal, but guemadmodum. The giving them up was
something corresponding to their disdainful rejection of the knowledge of
God, proportionate as punishment. — οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν] they deem God not worth
(1 Thess. 11. 4) ; ob γὰρ ἀγνοίας, ἀλλὰ μελέτης εἶναι φησὶ τὰ τολμήματα, Chrysos-
tom. — ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει] Their γνῶναι τὸν Θεόν, derived from the revelation
of nature (ver. 21), ought to have been brought by cultivation to an ἐπιγνῶ-
vat, that is, to a penetrating and living knowledge of God (see on Eph. i.
17 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12) ; thus they would have attained to the having God ἐν
ἐπιγνώσει ; but they would not, and so became τὰ ἔϑνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν,
1 Thess. iv. 5; Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; Acts xvii. 30. On ἔχε ἐν with
an abstract noun, which represents the object as appropriated in the action,
so that it is possessed in the latter (here in ἐπιγνῶναι), comp. Locella, ad Xen.
Eph. p. 255. Similar is ἐν ὀργῇ ἔχειν, and the like, Kriiger on Thucyd. ii. 8,
Ὁ, -- εἰς ἀδόκ. νοῦν] An ingenious paronomasia with οὐκ édoxiu., to set forth
the more prominently the recompense, to which the emphatically repeated ὁ
Θεός also contributes : as they did not esteem God worthy, etc., God gave
them up to an unworthy, reprobate νοῦς (the collective power of the mind’s
action in theoretic and moral cognition.)’ The rendering judicii expers
(Beza, Gléckler and others) is opposed to the genius of the language, even
as Bengel turns it, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 280, defines it. The ἀδόκιμον of
the νοῦς is its blameworthiness according to an objective moral standard, but
does not express the mode of thinking which they themselves must condemn
among one another (Th. Schott ; comp. Hofmann), which is neither to be
taken by anticipation from ver. 32, nor extracted from jj. — ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ
καϑήκοντα] to do what is not becoming, what is not moral. Comp. 3 Macc. iv. 16.
The Stoical distinction between καϑῆκον and κατόρϑωμα Paul has not thought
of (as Vitringa conceives). The infinitive is epexegetical : so that they do.
The participle with μή indicates the genus of that which is not seemly (Baeum-
lein, Partik. p. 296) ; τὰ ov καϑέήκοντα (comp. Eph. v. 4), would be the wn-
seemly. The negative expression is correlate to the ἀδόκιμος νοῦς.

Vv. 29-31. Πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ] a more precise definition of ποιεῖν
τὰ μὴ καϑήκ. : as those who are full of every unrighteousness (ver. 18). This is
the general statement, and all the points subsequently introduced are its
several species, so that μεστοὺς φϑόνου and then ψιϑυριστὰς «.7.2. are appositions

1 Comp. on vii. 23, and Kluge in the Jahrb. not determine the ethical conduct in accord-
f. D. Th. 1871, p. 829. The νοῦς is ἀδόκιμος ance withit.
when, not receptive for divine truth, it does

CHAP, τὴν 9. οἷς 69

to πεπληρ. π. adix. Similar catalogues of sins are 2 Cor. xii. 30; Gal. v. 19
ff.; Eph. v. 3f.; 1 Tim. i. 9 f.; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff. — πονηρίᾳ: . κακίᾳ] ma-
lignity (malice), comp. Eph. iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Tit. {Π|..8΄. . vileness
(meanness), the latter, in Aristotle and other writers, opposed to ἀρετή, and
translated in Cicero, Tusc. iv. 15, 34, by vitiositas. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 8. —
φόνου] Conceived here as the thought which has filled the man, the μερμηρίζειν
φόνον, Homer, Od. xix. 2, comp. Acts ix. 1. On the paronomasia with
φϑόνου comp. Gal. v. 21. The latter is just the σημεῖον φύσεως παντάπασι
πονηρᾶς, Dem, 499, 21. — κακοηϑείας] malicious disposition, whose peculiarity
it is ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ὑπολαμβάνειν τὰ πάντα (Aristotle, Fhet. ii. 18). As the con-
text requires a special vice, we may not adopt, with Erasmus, Calvin, and
Homberg, the general signification perversitas, corruptio morum (Xen. Cyn.
xiii. 16 ; Dem. 542, 11; Plat. Rep. p. 348 D).1— ψεϑυρ. whisperers, tale-
bearers, consequently secret slanderers (Dem. 1358, 6) ; but κατάλαλοι, calum-
niators, detractors generally, not precisely open ones (Theophylact, Kéllner, de
Wette, and others). Comp. ψιϑυρισμούς te καὶ καταλαλιάς, Clem. Cor. i. 35.
The construction of καταλάλους as an adjective with y.3vp (Hofmann), must be
rejected, because none of the other elements has an adjectival definition an-
nexed to it, and because καταλάλ. would not add to the notion of ψιϑυρ. any-
thing characteristic in the way of more precise definition. ψιϑυρ would be
better fitted to form a limiting definition of καταλ. But in 2 Cor. xii. 20
also, both ideas stand independently side by side. — ϑεοστυγεῖς] hated by
God, Deo odibiles (Vulgate). This passive rendering of the word which be-
longs especially to the tragedians (Pollux, i. 21), so that it is equivalent to
Θεῷ ἐχϑαιρόμενος (comp. Soph. Aj. 458), is clearly attested by the wsus
loquendi as the only correct one.? Since no passage whatever supports the
active signification, and since even Suidas and Oecumenius clearly betray
that they knew the active meaning adopted by them to be a deviation from
the usage of the ancient writers,’ we must reject, with Koppe, Riickert,
Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hofmann, the in-
terpretation, Dei osores, that has been preferred by the majority since the
time of Theodoret.* Even the analogous forms that have been appealed to,
ϑεομισῆς, βροτοστυγῆς (Aesch. Choeph. 51, Prom. 799), are to be taken as

1 See regarding the word generally Hom-
berg, Parerg. Ὁ. 196 ; Kypke, 11. Ὁ. 155 f.

2See Eurip. JVroad. 1213, Cycl. 395, 598,
Neophr. ap. Stob. sevm. 20, p. 172. Comp.
θεοστύγητος in Aesch. Choeph. 635, Fritzsche
in loc., and Wetstein.

3 Suidas says: Θεοστυγεῖς θεομίσητοι, οἱ ὑπὸ
Θεοῦ μισούμενοι καὶ οἱ Θεὸν μισοῦντες: παρὰ δὲ
τῷ ἀποστόλῳ θεοστυγεῖς οὐχὶ οἱ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισοῦ-
μενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μισοῦντες τὸν Θεόν. Oecume-
nius: Θεοστυγεῖς δὲ οὐ τοὺς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισουμέ-
νους, οὐ γὰρ αὐτῷ τοῦτο δεῖξαι πρόκειται νῦν,
ἀλλὰ τοὺς μισοῦντας Θεόν. These negative
definitions, which both give, manifestly
point to the use of the word in other

authors, from which Paul here departs. It °

is doubtful whether Clement, Cor. I. 35,

where thereis an echo of our passage, had
in view the active or the passive sense of
θεοστυγεῖς. He uses indeed the evidently
active θεοστυγία, but adds at the close of
the list of sins: ταῦτα οἱ πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ
τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν. Chrysostom does not
express his opinion regarding the word.

4 The Dei osores was taken to refer to the
heathen vice of wrath against the gods con-
ceived as possessing human passions. See
Grotius and Reiche. Others have under-
stood it variously. Tholuck thinks of ac-
cusers of providence,.Promethean characters;
Ewald, of dlasphemers of God; Calvin, of
those who have a horror of God on account
of His righteousness. Thus there is intro-
duced into the general expression what the

20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

passives, and therefore testify against the active interpretation.’ Comp.
ϑεοβλαβής, stricken of God, Herod. viii. 137, al. In particular, ϑεομισής is
quite the same as ϑεοστυγῆς the opposite of ϑεοφιλής, beloved of God.? The
accentuation ϑεοστύγης, approved of even by Grotius and Beza, to distinguish
it from the passive ϑεοστυγής, is nothing but an ancient (Suidas) unsupported
fiction.* _— God-hating is expressed by μισόϑεος, Lucian, Tim. 35, Aesch. Ag.
1090 ; comp. φιλόϑεος, God-loving. The adoption, nevertheless, of the active
sense was occasioned by the consideration : ‘‘ut in passivo positum dicatur,
nulla est ratio, quum P. hic homines ex vitiis evidentibus reos faciat,” Cal-
vin ; but even granting a certain unsuitableness in the passive sense, still
we should not be justified in giving an explanation contrary to the usus
loquendi ; we should be obliged to abide by the view that Paul had mixed
up a less suitable term among the others. But this objection is diminished,
if we take ϑεοστ., in accordance with the idea of divine holiness, as a char-
acteristic designation of infamous evil-doers in general. So Fritzsche, and
also Philippi.* And it vanishes altogether, if, leaving the word in its strict
signification, hated of God, we recognize in it a summary judgment of moral
indignation respecting all the preceding particulars ; so that, looking back on
these, it forms a resting point in the disgraceful catalogue, the continuation
of which is then carried on by ὑβριστὰς x.7.A. According to Hofmann,
ϑεοστυγ. is an adjective qualifying ὑβριστάς. But we do not see why precisely
this single point " in the entire catalogue, insolence (the notion of which is
not to be arbitrarily heightened, so as to make it denote ‘‘the man-despiser
who treads upon his fellows”), among so many particulars, some of them even
worse, should be accompanied by an epithet, and one, too, of so extreme
severity. — The continuation begins with a threefold description of se/f-eral-
tation, and that in a descending climax. Regarding the distinction between
ὑβρισταί, the insolent (qui prae superbia non solum contemnunt alios, sed
etiam contumeliose tractant, comp. 1 Tim. i. 13), ὑπερήφανοι, the proud (who,
proud of real or imaginary advantages, despise others), and ἀλαζόνες (boast-
ers, swaggerers, without exactly intending to despise or insult others with
their vainglory), see Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 73 1.5 If ὑπερηφ. be taken
as adjective with the latter (Hofmann), then the vice, which is invariably and
intrinsically immoral,’ would be limited merely to a particular mode of it.

context gives no hint of. This applies also
to Luther’s gloss: ‘‘the real picureans,
who live asif there were no God.”

1 Evenin Clem. Hom. i. 12, there is nothing
whatever in the connection opposed to the
passive rendering of θεοστυγεῖς.

2See Plat. Rep. p. 612 E, Huth. p. 8 A;
Dem. 1486, ult. ; Arist. Ran. 443. Comp.
θεῷ μισητοί, Wisd. xiv. 9; and, as regards
the idea, the Homeric ὅς κε θεοῖσιν ἀπέχθηται
μακάρεσσιν, Od. κ. 74. .

3 See Buttmann, II. p. 371, Winer, p. 53 [E.
T. 53].

4Comp. Plat. Zegg. viii. p. 838 B: θεο-

“lo... . καὶ αἰσχρῶν αἴσχιστα,

5 For neither καταλάλ. nor ὑπερηῷ. are to
be taken as adjectives. See on those
words. Hofmann seems to have adopted
such a view, merely in order to gain anal-
ogies in the text for his inappropriate treat-
ment of the objectionable θεοστυγεῖς as an
adjective.

ὁ Comp. Grotius and Wetstein ; on ἀλας,
especially Ruhnk. ad. Tim. p. 28, Ast, ad.
Theophr. Char. 28.

7 See Xen. Mem. i. 7, 1 ff., where ἀλαζονεία
is the antithesis of ἀρετή. It belongs to
the category of the ψεύδεσθαι, Aesch. adv.
Ctesiph. 99; Plat. Lys. p. 218 Ὁ. Compare
also 2 Tim. 111. 2; Clem. Cor. I. (35,

CHAP. 1., 32. 71

— ἐφευρ. κακῶν] devisers (Anacr. xli. 8) of evil things, quite general ; not to
be limited to things of lwawry, with Grotius ; nor, with Hofmann, to evils
which they desire to do to others.'— dovvérove| irrational, unreflecting, who,
in what they do and leave undone, are not determined by the σύνεσις, by
morally intelligent insight. Luther rightly says: ‘‘Mr. Unreason going
rashly to work [Hans Unvernunft, mit dem Kopfe hindurch].” So also
Eccles. xv. 7. The rendering devoid of conscience (according to Suidas) de-
viates from the proper signification of the word. — ἀσυνϑέτους] makes a par-
onomasia with the foregoing, and means, not wnsociable (Castalio, Tittmann,
Ewald, comp. Hofmann), for which there is no warrant of usage, but cove-
nant-breakers.2 On ἀστόργ. (without the natural affection of love) and ἀνελεῆμ
(unmerciful), see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69.— The succession of the accumu-
lated particulars is not arranged according to a systematic scheme, and the
construction of such a scheme leads to arbitrary definition of the import of
individual points ; but still their distribution is so far in accordance with
approximate categories, that there are presented :— 1st, The general
heathen vices, πεπληρωμένους . . . . κακίᾳ ; 2nd, dispositions inimical to
others, μεστοὺς . . . . κακοηϑείας, and calumniatory speeches, ψιϑυρ., καταλάλ.. ;
both series concluding with the general θεοστυγεῖς ; then, drd, The arrogant
character, ὑβριστὰς... . ἀλαζόνας ; and finally, 4th, A series of negative
particulars (all with @ privative), but headed by the positive, general ἐφευρ.
κακῶν. This negative series portrays the want of dutiful affection in family
life (γον. ἀπειϑ.), of intelligence (ἀσυνέτ.), fidelity (aovvd.), and love,
(ἀστόργ-.. ave2..), consequently the want of every principle on which moral
action is based. [See Note XIV. p. 78.]

Ver. 32. Oirwec] quippe qui, of such a character, that they, cannot be the
specification of a reason, as in ver. 25, and cannot consequently be intended
to repeat once more the laying of the blame on themselves, since ver. 32
merely continues the description of the wickedness. It rather serves to
introduce the awful completion of this description of vice; and that in
such a way, that the Gentile immorality is brought clearly to light as an
opposition to knowledge and conscience, and is thereby at the last very evi-
dently shown to be wholly inexcusable (comp. 11]. 1). --- τὸ δικαίωμα τ. Θεοῦ]
i.e. that which God as Lawgiver and Judge has ordained ; what He has deter-
mined, and demands, as right.* Paul means the natural law of the moral
consciousness (ii. 15), which determines : ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες K.T.A.
This ὅτι «.7.A. therefore is not to be treated as a parenthesis. — ἐπεγνόντες]
although they have discerned (comp. on ver. 28), not merely γνόντες ; but so ἡ
much the greater is the guilt. — ϑανάτου] What in the view of the heathen
was conceived of as the state of punishment in Hades (comp. Philippi and
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 277), which was incurred through vice and crime, Paul
designates, in accordance with the truth involved in it (comp. Plat. Rep. p.
330 D), from his standpoint as ϑάνατος, and by this he means eternal death

1 Comp. 2 Mace. vii. 21, and the passages also Dem. 388, 6.
from Philo in Loesner; also Tacit. Ann. iy. 3Comp. Kriiger on Zhuc. i. 41, 1; and
11, and Virg. Aen. ii. 161. see on Vv. 16.

2 Jer. iii. 8,10 f.; Suidas, Hesychius ; see

72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

(comp. 2 Thess. i. 8) ; not temporal (Bengel, van Hengel, Mehring) ; or
execution (Grotius, Hofmann) ; also not indefinitely severe punishments,’ the
misery of sin, and so forth (so even Fritzsche and de Wette). — συνευδοκ. τοῖς
πράσσ.] they are consenting with them that do them (comp. Luke xi. 48 ; Acts
viii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 12; 1 Macc. i. 60; 2 Macc. xi. 24. They not only do
those things, but are also in their moral judgment (so wholly antagonistic to
conscience has the latter become in the abandonment unto which God has
decreed them, ver. 28) in agreement with others who so act. Bengel well
remarks : ‘‘ pejus est συνευδοκεῖν ; nam qui malum patrat, sua sibi cupiditate
abducitur,” etc., and how sharply are we otherwise ourselves accustomed to
see and judge the mote in the eye of another! (Matt. vii. 3). This cli-
max’ to the description of immorality, moreover, is neither to be referred
with Grotius and Baumgarten-Crusius to the philosophers, who approved of
several vices (paederastia, revenge, etc.) or regarded them as adiaphora ;
nor with Heumann and Ewald to the magistrates, who left many crimes
unpunished and even furthered them by their own example ; but, in har-
mony with the quite general delineation of Gentile depravity, to be taken
as a general feature marking the latter, which is thus laid bare in the deep-
est slough of moral perversity. — The πράσσοντες and πράσσουσι are more com-
prehensive than the simple ποιοῦσιν (do), designating the pursuit of these
immoralities as the aim of their δου νιν. ὃ

Notes py AMERICAN EprtTor.

I. Ver. 1. Παῦλος.

The view of the origin of the name Paul advocated by Meyer in his Introduc-
‘tion to the Epistle, § 1, and in his notes on Acts xiii. 9—that it was received
on occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus—is also given by Olshausen,
Ewald, and some others, but it is rejected by most writers of recent times, and
by Weiss in his edition of Meyer's work. Weiss holds that it is rendered
improbable by the fact that the name is mentioned in the Acts three verses
earlier than the statement of the conversion of the proconsul. It may be
questioned whether this argument can be regarded as having, in itself, special
or decisive force. But, when the manner of introducing the new name into
the narrative is considered, as related both to the preceding and following con-
text, it will be observed that there is nothing, except what may easily be a mere
accidental juxtaposition of words to favor the derivation suggested ; while, on the
other hand, there is, in addition to the improbability that the Apostle would
have adopted a name from one of his converts, a noticeable absence of any such
indication that he did thus adopt it, as might naturally be expected if the his-
torian had intended to convey this idea. It seems better, therefore, to hold

that the Apostle had two names : one connected with his Hebrew origin, and
the other with his Roman citizenship.

1Melanchthon says well against this 2 The climax lies necessarily in ἀλλὰ Kat
view : ‘“‘P. non loquitur de politica guber- (in opposition to Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 6).
natione, quae tantum externa facta punit : 3 See on John iii. 20. Comp. Rom. ii. 3,

verum de judicio proprio in cujusque con- vii. 15, xiii. 4 ; Dem. de cor. 62: τί προσῆκον
scientia intuente Deum.” ἣν ἑλέσθαι πράττειν κ. ποιεῖν.

NOTES. 16)

II. δοῦλος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

The word δοῦλος involves two ideas—that of belonging to a master, and that
of service as a slave. As connected with the latter idea, the δοῦλος is in a
δουλείᾳ, which answers to our conception of slavery ; as connected with the
former, though he may, indeed, be in this condition, yet he also may not be.
When speaking of Christian disciples, Paul always uses the word in the former
sense. To his view, the believer, so far as his work and life are concerned,
passes at his conversion out of the state of δουλεία into that of ἐλευθερία. The
only slavery is that of sin. The service of Christ is perfect freedom. Whether
the word is here used as referring to official position or with a more general
meaning, cannot be determined with absolute certainty. As we find it, how-
ever, when employed in connection with the names of individual persons,
always applied to those who had some special work as teachers or ministers,
and as in most of the places where it is thus applied it occurs in the opening
salutations of the Apostolic letters, it seems probable that it carries with it the
official reference. Yet this reference must be regarded as quite general (as
Meyer says), and the idea of the word—as when used of the private Christian
—is that of wholly belonging to Chriss.

TI. Ver. 3. περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ.

The following points must be regarded as established by the manifest
parallelism of the clauses: (a) that two things are declared respecting the Son,
one on the σώρξ side of his nature, and the other on the πνεῦμα side ; the πνεῦμα
being, thus, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son’s own spirit, and dy. being a
characteristic or descriptive genitive ; (b) that the former of these two things
is his descent from David and birth in the line of David’s family, while the lat-
ter is designated by ὁρισθέντος---δυνάμει. That σάρξ, as used in the former state-
ment, does not, in itself, exclude the idea of a descent from David so far as the
human πνεῦμα is concerned, is evidenced by the common representation, in the
Pauline Epistles (as well as the other N. T. writings), of Jesus as a complete
man, and by the fact that there is nothing in the contrast of this particular
sentence which necessarily contradicts the general representation. That there
is nothing of this character is clear, because the contrasted πνεῦμα here may
refer to the divine nature in Christ as distinguished from his human nature ;
and if, on the other hand, it is interpreted as referring to his human spirit, the
statement of the clause must be understood as made with reference to it,—and
as declaring what was true of it,—only after the resurrection. It must be
admitted, however, that the phrase ‘‘ according to the flesh’’ may be employed
here, as often in the case of similar expressions in common speech, to call
attention to the physical origin, without making prominent—though, indeed,
it does not deny—the human-spiritual descent ; and thus that the mere use of
this phrase cannot properly be considered as decisive proof that the human
nature is contrasted with the divine, and that πνεῦμα must refer to the divine
nature,

The fact, however, that the contrast is thus filled out to greater fulness,
and its introduction is more satisfactorily accounted for ; that the expression
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is not only a peculiar one, which would not be expected when
speaking of men, but one haying a near affinity to πνεῦμα ἅγιον, the name given to
the Divine Spirit ; and that Paul elsewhere exalts Christ above all other beings

74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

except God, or even gives him Divine exaltation, must be regarded as strongly
pointing to the conclusion that something more is intended by the word than
the mere ‘‘éow ἄνθρωπος, which receives the communication of the divine,”
and that to the writer’s mind there was in Christ a peculiar divine element of
nature, by virtue of and in accordance with which he was constituted Son of
God with power by his resurrection.

In respect to ὁρισθέντος, Meyer has satisfactorily shown that it is equivalent
to qui constitulus est, The verb carries with it the idea of marking as bya
boundary, and so, when connected with the matter of office, position, etc., of
constituting, appointing, in which sense it is used in Acts x. 42, xvii. 31. It is
-evident, however, that the Apostle does not mean to affirm that Christ was
constituted Son of God, in connection with his resurrection, in any such sense
as would involve the declaration that he was not Son of God before this.
Such a declaration would be clearly opposed to the Pauline doctrine, as
exhibited in all his Epistles. Moreover, the constituting did not consist sim-
ply in a demonstrating or proving him to be Son of God to the view of men.
This idea is neither presented in the participle itself, nor in any other words
of the sentence. That the writer, however, in sucha statement, would not
fail to set forth the precise sense in which he designed to use the word, is
altogether probable. If we connect ἐν δυνάμει with υἱοῦ Θεοῦ we have such an
explanatory phrase which meets the demands of the case and accords with
New Testament teaching. Otherwise there is none. We may regard this as
the true construction, therefore, rather than that which is favored by Meyer
(with whom de Wette, Godet, Alford, Gifford, Shedd, and others agree),
although the possibility of the latter must undoubtedly be admitted. It was by
the resurrection that Christ was made Son of God with power, as he had not
been in his earthly condition and as born of the seed of David. Weiss ed.
Mey. agrees with this view.

IV. Ver. 5. χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν.

The explanation of these words is to be sought, (a) in connection with such
passages as Rom. xii. 6-8; Eph. iii. 7-12; Gal. 11. 9; Rom. xii. 3; xv. 15; 1 Cor. iii.
10. From these passages it is evident, that, in addition to his conception of di-
vine grace as bestowed upon all believers, and as lying at the basis of their
Christian life, Paul had the thought of a special impartation of this grace to
individual men, for the purpose of fitting them for various offices and duties.
In his own case, it had been given in such measure and manner as to qualify
him to be a preacher of the Gospel, an apostle, a missionary to the Gen-
tiles rather than the Jews, a founder of churches in regions into which others
had not previously entered. It is also to be sought, (b) in connection with
passages such as Gal. iv. 2, in which aword of amore specific character is
added by καί to one that is more general, the design of the addition being to
point the reader to that particular application of the general word which is,
at the time, in the writer’s mind. The form of expression in such cases is not
precisely a hendiadys (as if in this verse, e.g. the words were equivalent to
χάριν ἀποστολῆς ; but the latter word is nevertheless explanatory, and carries
with it the principal thought. As the writer says of the heir of an estate in
Gal. iv. 2, that, in his minority, he is under guardians (ἐπιτρόπους, the general —
word), and [i.e.to mark more particularly the relation tothe point in hand]

NOTES. ie

guardians in the matter of property (οἰκονόμους). So here he declares of him-
self, that he had, through Jesus Christ, received grace, and, specially, the gift of
and qualification for the apostolic office. The striking similarity in the main
thought of this verse and that of xv. 15, 16 can scarcely fail to be noticed as
confirming this view of the meaning here, It is this particular and peculiar
gift of grace, on which the Apostle founds his claim to address and admonish
the Gentile churches.
V. Ver. 5. εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως.

That Meyer is correct in his explanation of these words, as against the view
of Calvin, Hofmann, Godet, and others, including Weiss ed. Mey., who regard
πίστεως as gen. appos., obedience which consists in faith, and that of Sanday, Shedd,
and others, who hold it to be a gen. subj. obedience which springs from faith, is
proved by the fact that in all other cases, where ὑπακοῇ is used ina similar way,
the gen., whether denoting a person or thing, is objective, and also by the
fact that where a kindred expression is employed having the kindred verb
ὑπακούειν, the object and not the source, of the obedience is referred to. Philippi,
de Wette, Alford, Gifford, Olshausen, Schaff, Beet, and others agree with Meyer,
Godet and Weiss claim that faith is never in N. T. conceived of objectively
as a power, and hence that Meyer’s view has no foundation. But this claim
can hardly be substantiated, in view of Acts vi. 7 ; Gal. i. 23 (cf. Gal. 111. 2, 5;
2 Tim. iv. 7). The correctness of Meyer’s opinion, that πίστις here means
subjective faith, and not doctrina fidei or the gospel, is admitted by the larger
part of the best modern commentators. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether
faith is ever used in N. T. as having the sense of the faith, i.e. the system of
Christian doctrine, and certain that it does not ordinarily have this meaning.
The probability against this sense of the word is, therefore, exceedingly
strong in this and all similar cases.

VI. Ver. 8. πρῶτον μέν.

The second point of the introductory passage, which is indicated by his use
of πρῶτον as in the writer’s mind, is his desire to visit the readers. He is led,
however, in the progress of his sentences, to bring out this desire in a gram-
matical subordination to the expression of his thankfulness for the widespread
knowledge of their Christian life, and, thus, to abandon his original design of
introducing it by a δεύτερον or ἔπειτα. The presentation, in such ἃ grammat
ically subordinate way, of thoughts which are logically co-ordinate with others
already expressed, belongs to the epistolary style as distinguished from that of
a formal treatise, and is especially characteristic of the style of the Pauline
letters.

VII. Ver. 11. εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς.

This verb is found again in xvi. 25 ;—at the beginning, thus, and the end
of the letter. It indicates what the Apostle hoped might be the result of a per-
sonal visit to the readers, if he should be permitted to make such a visit, and
also what he thought of as the great blessing which God was able to bestow
upon them. As this letter was apparently written in order that it might bea
kind of representative of himself, until the hoped-for visit should be accom-
plished, we can scarcely doubt that in the idea of this verb is to be found
the final purpose of his writing. However fully the epistle has the doctrinal

76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

character, it was designed to accomplish a practical result—namely, to estab-
lish and strengthen the Roman believers in the Christian life. This, and not
the mere knowledge of true doctrine, was what he desired as the fruit of his
labors (ver. 13), and by reason of this he expected to be encouraged when he
saw the evidence of their faith (ver. 12), as, at the same time, he trusted that
they would be encouraged by the manifestation of his own.

VIII. Ver. 16. παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι.

What the Apostle means by the word παντί is manifest from that which he adds
at the end of the sentence —to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. The same thing
is seen in ii. 9, 10, iii. 9, 19 ; cf. iii. 22, 23, 29; iv. 16; cf. iv. 11, 12; that is, in
all those passages (from the beginning to the end of his direct argument for his
doctrine of justification), in which the relations of the faith system and the
legal system are set forth, in their contrast with each other, by the use of this
word. It is of all men as distinguished from Jews only, and not of all men as
opposed to all with the exception of a certain portion or number, that he
speaks in his discussion of the method of salvation. The Pauline universalism
finds its opposite in the limitations of Judaism. According to the latter, jus-
tification is confined to those who are born into the Jewish nation, or are
united with it as proselytes ; according to the former, it is open to men every-
where, Gentiles equally with Jews,—to all who believe, without regard to na-
tional distinctions or boundaries.

IX. Ver. 17. δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ x.7.A.

Ver. 17 may be regarded as containing in itself the subject of the Epistle, or
the proposition which the writer undertakes to establish and defend: ight-
eousness is by faith. This proposition, however, isnot presented in an indepen-
dent and formal way. On the contrary, it is made, through the γάρ at the
beginning of the verse, to be a proof that the gospel is the power of God unto
salvation to every believer ; and this latter statement, again, through the γάρ
by which it is introduced, is brought forward as the ground of the writer’s
declaration, that he is not ashamed of the gospel. The form of expression in
the 17th verse is naturally affected by this manner of its introduction, and hence
we have the words as they stand: A (or the) righteousness of God is revealed
in it [the gospel] as proceeding from faith. The argument which follows,
however, is directed to the end of proving the truth of the proposition in its
simplest statement.

The interpretation of ἐκ πίστεως as denoting the subjective source or cause from
which righteousness comes is proved to be correct, (a) from the fact that this
verse stands in the relation above described to the entire discussion of the
Epistle, which is upon righteousness by faith ; (Ὁ) from the meaning of ἐκ πίστεως
in the confirmatory passage cited, in the latter part of the verse, from
O. T. ; (ὦ from the use of διὰ πίστεως in the parallel passage, iii. 21, 22 ; (d)
from the fact that Paul in several places employs the expression δικαιοσύνη
ἐκ πίστεως (e.g. ix. 30, x.6; cf. Gal. v. 5) in this sense, but mever in any
other. The explanation of εἰς πίστιν, on the other hand, is suggested by the
mode of arguing adopted by the writer (see Note X. also). The phenomena of
the case are as follows: The proposition presented in ver. 17 is proved by
showing that the only other doctrine supposable--namely, that of justification

NOTES. 77

by works—cannot be maintained. This negative proof is evidently completed
at iii. 20. The only thing remaining to be done, at that point, is, accordingly,
to repeat the original proposition, as having been already established. There is,
in fact, such a repetition in iii. 21, 22, as we must admit from the striking simi-
larity, both in the thought and expression of those verses, to what is found in
i. 17. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the Apostle intended to restate, in the
later verses, what he had said in the earlier ones, and that, if so, the two must
throw light upon each other. As we examine the passages, however, we
find that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ occurs in both ; that πεφανέρωται of the latter answers
to ἀποκαλύπτεται of the former ; that dia πίστεως corresponds with ἐκ πίστεως ;
and that γωρὶς νόμου suggests the idea of ἐν αὐτῷ: This being so, the proba-
bility becomes overwhelming that εἰς τοὺς πιστεύοντας answers to εἰς πίστιν
so far as to give us the author’s meaning in the latter phrase. The πίστις of
1.17 is, accordingly, that which is in the minds and hearts of the persons re-
ferred to in 111. 22, and that which makes them οἱ πιστεύοντες It is that in
them to which the revelation of righteousness comes and the offer of justifica-
tion is presented.

X. Ver. 18. ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ Θεοῦ.

The discussion, which is entered upon at the 18th verse and continued as far
as iii. 20, assumes as athing admitted by both parties to the controversy, that
there is a method by which men can be justified. It also assumes that, if
there is such a method, it must be either in the line of faith or in that of works.
These things being granted at the outset, it was evidently necessary for the
Apostle only to prove that justification is not by works, in order to the estab-
lishment of the proposition that it is by faith. It is this indirect course which
he takes in his argument—the direct proof being, in this part of the Epistle,
left entirely without consideration. The negative argument is divided into
two sections, the first having reference to the Gentiles, the second to the Jews.
This division is connected with the defence of the doctrine as against Judais-
tic views, for, whatever opinion we may have as to the design or character of the
Epistle, it cannot be doubted that the discussion takes hold upon the great
question between the Pauline and Jewish Christianity.

XI. Ver. 20. τὰ ἀόρατα κ.τ.λ.

Evidently the invisible things are the everlasting power and divinity men-
tioned afterward. The evidence for the existence of God here presented is
that which the visible creation furnishes to the mind. The creation proves
a creator with power adequate to produce it, i.e. an omnipotent creator ; om-
nipotence carries with it the proof of the other divine attributes ; and thus
the things that are made are, and ever since the beginning of time have been,
bearing witness to God—a witness which is clearly understood, so soon as the
νοῦς is directed to it and it is intelligently considered (νοούμενα). In this way
the knowledge of God was manifested from the first, and is manifest still, to
the Gentile nations ; and because of this fact, their turning away to idolatry is
due, not to a want of revelation of the truth, but to a repressing of the truth,
(κατεχόντων ver. 18), and a preventing it from having its legitimate influence
upon their minds, through their own unrighteousness.

8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

XII. Ver. 21. διότι--ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐματαιώθησαν.

διότι justifies and confirms the preceding word, ἀναπολογήτους, and the two
following verbs set forth the attitude which, as the natural and legitimate re-
sult of knowing God, they should have held toward Him: they should have
glorified Him for what He is in Himself, and have had thankfulness to Him for
what He had given to them. Neither of these things had they done, but —the
very opposite of this—they had turned away to the worship of idols. This
turning to idolatry is set forth in ἐματαιώθησαν x.t.4., as the result of the vain
and empty speculations (διαλογισμοῖς) into which they were led by reason of
wilfully preventing (ἐν ἀδικίᾳ) the knowledge of God from having its true influ-
ence upon their thoughts, and of the consequent darkness and folly in which
they were involved. Weiss ed. Mey. denies any immediate connection be-
tween ἐματαιώθησαν and the use of μάταια as employed in O. T. of idols, such as
Meyer and many others hold, and regards it as pointing only to the fact that
they directed their thoughts, not to the highest object of all thought, the true
God, but to earthly things. He thus accords substantially with the view ex-
pressed above.

XIII. Ver. 24. διὸ παρέδωκεν κ. τ. A.

The evidence that there is no justification by works for the Gentiles, but
rather a revelation of wrath, is presented by a mere setting forth of the works
which characterize them. For such works there can be nothing but condemna-
tion. In his unfolding of the heathensins, the writer lays the foundation of all
in idolatry (vv. 18-23), and then brings forward other evils as the result of this.
These other evils he divides into two sections—(1) the sins of impurity
(vv. 24-27), and (2) all other sins (vv. 28-32). Among these other sins,
it is noticeable that the first specific one is πλεονεξία, covetousness (ἀδικία,
πονηρία, and κακία, having a general character). The relation of all sin among
the Gentiles to idolatry, and the development of idolatry on the side of impu-
rity and of covetousness, seem to have been prominent before the mind of Paul,
as we find him connecting them elsewhere. He also presents these latter evils
as the two chief and distinguishing evils of the heathen nations. The paral-
lelizing of impurity, in the first of the two sections here, with sins of every
other sort, as if in one great class, in the second, is very suggestive. It is
noticeable, also, that these multitudinous evils which spring from idolatry are
presented before the reader as arising from it in the way of a divine judgment :
God gives over these who thus voluntarily abandon the truth respecting Him-
self, to the consequences in moral action of their own chosen errors.

XIV. Ver. 29-31. ἀδικία---ἀνελεήμονες,

That there is no designed arrangement according to a definite classification
in vv. 29-31, is rendered altogether probable by the following considerations :
(a) in the midst of a series of words which designate particular kinds of evil-
doers, we find general words applicable to all evil-doers, θεοστογεῖς, ἐφευρέτας
κακῶν. [The explanation of the former of these by Meyer, as a general word
closing the list which conveys the idea of hostility, and of the latter as a positive
opening the negative series (with ἀ privative), seems quite unsatisfactory, be-
cause θεοστυγεῖς, on the one hand, is as truly inclusive of the words which im-

NOTES. 79

mediately follow it, as of those which precede, and ἐφ. κακ., on the other, is
not peculiarly related in its signification to the compound words which it is
supposed to introduce] ; (0) the arrangement within the individual classes is
not so accurate as such a purposed classification would 681] for ; e.g. the words
from φθόνου to κακοηθείας ; (0) in other cases, where similar lists of words are
found, there are difficulties of the same character in the supposition of any
such formal division, e.g. Gal. 111. 22, 23; Heb. xi. 36, 37 ; (d) these accumulations
of descriptive terms generally occur (as here, and in Heb. l.c.), in parts of the
author’s discourse where he is rising towards the climax of his thought, and
also towards the highest point of feeling—that is, in just those places where he
would be least disposed to classify with care. All these lists of this character
are, doubtless, to be explained as accumulations for rhetorical effect. In this
way, rather than in any other, we may account in the present instance, not
only for the insertion of general words, as indicated above, but also for the
succession of negative compounds at the end, the force of which, as the apos-
tle uttered them one after another when dictating to his amanuensis, can be
easily appreciated.

80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER AE

Ver. 5. After ἀποκαλ. D*** K L &**, min., and several versions and
Fathers, including Or., read xai, which is adopted by Mill, Wetst. Matth. and
Fritzsche.! Against it is the greatly preponderant authority of the uncials,
and the suspicion of having been added by way of relief to the accumulation
of genitives. — Ver. 8. μέν after ἀπειθ. is wanting in B D* G &*, and is omit-
ted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), but was easily psssed over from inattention as
seeming superfluous. —The order ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (thus also Lachm. and Tisch.)
is decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before véuov, which Elz. and Fritzsche
read both times, but which Lachm. and Tisch. both times omit, is wanting
in A Β Ὁ E (which however has it in the first case) G 8, 31, 46, Damasc, ; and
betrays itself in the general form of the saying as inserted in order to denote
the Mosaic law. — Ver. 14, ποιῇ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ποιῶσιν, following A B
8, min., Clem. Or. Damasc. (D* G have ποιοῦσιν). The plural is an amend-
ment suggested by the context. — Ver. 16. Instead of ὅτε Lachm. following A and
some Fathers, has 7. ; an interpretation ; as is also ἐν 7 ἡμέρᾳ in Β. — Ver. 17.
εἰ δέ] The too weakly attested Recepta ide or ἰδέ is either a mere copyist’s error,
or an alteration to get rid of the supposed anakoluthon. See Reiche, Comm.
crit.

Ver. 1.—ch. iii. 20. Having shown, ch. i. 18-32, in the case of the Gen-
tiles, that they were strangers to the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Paul now, ΟἿ. 11.--111, 20,
exhibits the same fact with reference to the Jews, and thus adduces
the second half of the proof as to the universal necessity of justification by
faith. [See Note XV. p. 105.] Naturally the Apostle was chiefly concerned
with this second half of the proof, as the ἀδικία of heathenism was in itself
clear ; but we see from ch. ii. that the detailed character of that deline-

ation of Gentile wickedness was intended at the same time as a mirror for
degenerate Judaism, to repress all Jewish conceit. Comp. Mangold, p. 102.

Ver. 1. Διό] [See Note XVI. p. 105.] refers back to the main tenor of the whole
previous exposition (vv. 18-82), and that indeed in its more special aspect as
setting forth the moral condition of heathenism in respect to its imexcusable-
ness. This reference is confirmed by the fact, that ἀναπολόγητος εἶ is said
with a manifest glancing back to i. 20 ; it is laid down by Paul as it were
as a finger-post for his διό. The reference assumed by Reiche, Fritzsche,
Krehl, de Wette, and older writers, to the proposition in ver. 32, that the
rightful demand of God adjudges death to the evil-doers ; or to the cog-
nizance of that verdict, in spite of which the Gentiles were so immoral

1 Defended also by Philippi and Reiche, pearing not to receive more precise defini-
Comm. crit., who thinks that the καί has tion. See on the other hand yan Hengel.
been rejected on account of amoxadA. ap-

CHAP, ΕΣ. Ἢ. 81

(Philippi, Baur, Th. Schott, Hofmann, Mangold), has against it the fact
that this thought formed only a subsidiary sentence in what went before ;
whereas here a new section begins, at the head of which Paul very naturally
has placed a reference, even expressly marked by ἀναπολόγητος, to the entire
section ending with ver. 32, over which he now throws once more a retro-
spective glance. The connection of ideas therefore is : ‘‘ wherefore,” i.e. on
account of that abomination of vice pointed out in vv. 18-82, ‘‘ thou art in-
excusable,” ete. ; ‘‘for”—to exhibit now more exactly this “wherefore” —
wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, because thou doest the
same thing. In other words : before the mirror of this Gentile life of sin all
excuse vanishes from thee, O man who judgest, for this mirror reflects thine
own conduct, which thou thyself therefore condemnest by thy judgment. A
deeply tragic de te narratur / into which the proud Jewish consciousness
sees itself all of a sudden transferred. A proleptie use of διό (Tholuck) is
not to be thought of ; not even γάρ is so used in the N. T. (see on John iv.
44), and διό neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere. —6 ἄνϑρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων]
Just as Paul, i. 18, designated the Gentiles by the general term ἀνϑρώπων,
and only brought forward the special reference to them in the progress of
the discourse ; so also he now designates the Jews, not as yet by name (see
this first at ver. 17), but generally by the address ἄνϑρωπε, which however
already implies a trace of reproach (ix. 20);! while at the same time he
makes it by his πᾶς ὁ κρίνων sufficiently apparent that he is no longer speak-
ing of the class already delineated, but is turning now to the Jews con-
trasted with them ; for the self-righteous judging respecting the Gentiles as |
rejected of God? was in fact a characteristic of the Jews. Hence all the more
groundless is the hasty judgment, that this passage has nothing whatever to:
do with the contrast between Jews and Gentiles (Hofmann). Comp. ver.
17 ff. And that it is the condemning κρίνειν which is meant, and not the:
moral capacity of judgment in general (Th. Schott) and its exercise (Hof-
mann) (comp. on Matt. vii. 9), follows from the subsequent κατακρίνεις more:
precisely defining its import. Consequently the quite general interpreta-
tion (Beza, Calovius, Benecke, Mehring, Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p.
416) seems untenable, as well as the reference to the Gentiles as the judging
subjects (Th. Schott), or to all to whom i. 32 applied (Hofmann), or even
specially to Gentile authorities (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oc-
cumenius, Cajetanus, Grotius).°—év 6] either instrumental : thereby, that,
equivalent to ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (Hofmann) ; or, still more closely corresponding to:
the τὰ yap αὐτὰ πράσσεις : in which thing, in which point. Comp. xiv. 22.
The temporal rendering : eodem tempore quo (Kollner, Reithmayr), arbi-
trarily obscures the moral identity, which Paul intended to bring out. The:
κατακρίνεις however is not facto condemnas (Estius, van Hengel), but the ,
judgment pronounced upon the other is a condemnatory judgment upon thy- —
self, namely, because it applies to thine own conduct. On the contrast be-

1 Luke xii. 14; Plat. Prot. p.330D, Gorg. and many other passages.
p. 452 B, and the passages in Wetstein, 3 Regarding the nominative as further ethi-
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. Ὁ. 164. calepexcgesisof thevocative,see Bernhardy,
3 Midr. Tillin f. 6, 3; Chetubb. f. 8,3: p. 67, Buttmann, Newt. Gr. Ὁ. 123. [E. T. 141.]

82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

tween ἕτερον and σεαυτόν comp. ver. 21; 1 Cor. x. 24, 29; Gal. vi. 4; Phil.
ii. 4. -- τὰ αὐτά] the same sins and vices, not indeed according to all their
several concrete manifestations, as previously described, but according to
their essential moral categories ; see vv. 17-24. Comp. on the idea John
vill, 7. — ὁ κρίνων) with reproachful emphasis.

Ver. 2. Oidayev] Paul means to pronounce it as in his own view and that of
his readers an undoubted truth (comp. iii. 19), that the judicial decision which
God will one day pronounce, etc. The δέ carries on the discourse, and the
entire sentence forms the propositio major to what is now (ver. 3) to be
proved, namely, that the person judging (the Jew), who yet makes himself
guilty of wickedness similar to the things (τὰ τοιαῦτα) in question, deceives
himself if he thinks to escape the true judgment of God (ver. 5). Thus τὸ
κρίμα ' τ. Θεοῦ has the emphasis of contrast with that human judgment so
inconsistent with their own conduct. The predicate of being κατὰ ἀλήϑειαν
ἐπὶ τοὺς κιτ.λ. belongs not to the latter, but to the divine κρίμα. Th. Schott
erroneously emphasizes πράσσοντας, dislocating the clear train of thought, as
if Paul were treating of the truth that the Gentile’s knowledge of what was
right would not shield him from sin and condemnation. Hofmann also
introduces a similar confusion. — κατὰ ἀλήϑειαν] contains the standard, in
accordance with which the judgment of God is pronounced against the τὰ
τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες : in accordance with truth, so that it is, without error or
partiality, entirely adequate to the moral condition of these subjects. Ra-
phel, Kéllner, Krehl, Mehring, and Hofmann take it as equivalent to ἀληϑῶς,
really (4 Macc. v. 15 ; and in Greek writers), so that the meaning would
be : it is iv reality issued over them. But it could not be the object of the
Apostle to remind them of the reality of the divine judicial sentence, which
was under all circumstances undoubted and undisputed, so much as of its
truth, for the sake of the Jews who fancied that that judgment would con-
demn the Gentiles, but would spare the descendants of Abraham as such,
and on account of their circumcision and other theocratic privileges ; by
which idea they manifestly denied the ἀλήϑεια of the κρῖμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, as if it
were an untrue false sentence, the contents of which did not correspond to
the existing state of the facts.

Ver. 3. Antithesis of ver. 2, ‘‘That God judges evildoers according to
truth, we know (ver. 2) ; but judgest thou (in the face of that proposition)
that thou shalt . . . . escape?” This would indeed be at variance with the
ἀλήϑεια of the judgment. Comp. Matt. iii. 7; and the passages from pro-
fane writers in Grotius. The non-interrogative rendering of vv. 3, 4 (Hof-
mann) is not called for by the connection with the assertive declaration in
ver. 5 ; it weakens the lively force of the discourse, and utterly fails to suit
the ἢ in ver. 4, so prevalent in double questions. — τοῦτο] preparing with
emphasis (here : of surprise) for the following ὅτε σὺ éxd. «.7.A.; Bernhardy,
p. 284. — σὺ] Thou on thy side, as if thou madest an exception ; opposed
to the Jewish self-conceit (Matt. iii. 7 ff.; Luke iii. 7 f.). The emphasis is

1 Not κρίμα. With Lachmannit is to be 418. Lipsius is of a different opinion as
accentuated κρῖμα ; see Lobeck, Paralip. p. regards the N. T. (grammat. Unters, Ὁ. 40 f.).

CHAP? ΤΙΣ, 45 δὲ 83

not on Θεοῦ (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others). — ἐκφεύξῃ] not : through
acquittal (Bengel),* but inasmuch as thou shalt not be subjected to the κρῖμα
of God, but shalt on the contrary escape it and be secure afar off from it.
Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 26, vii. 35 ; 1 Thess. v. 3 ; Heb. ii. 83. According to
the Jewish illusion only the Gentiles were to be judged (Bertholdt, Christol.
p- 206 ff.), whereas all Israel were to share in the Messianic kingdom as its
native children (Matt. viii. 12).

Ver. 4. [See Note XVII. p. 106.] Or—in case thou hast not this illusion—
despisest thou, etc. The ἢ draws away the attention from the case first put as
a question, and proposes another ; vi. 3 ; 1 Cor. ix. 6, and often elsewhere.?
—The despising the divine goodness is the contemptuous unconcern as to its
holy purpose, which produces as a natural consequence security in sinning
(Eccles. v. 5 f.).— τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστ.] πλοῦτος, as designation of the
‘‘abundantia et magnitudo” (Estius), is a very current expression with the
Apostle (ix. 23, xi. 38); Eph. i. 7, ii. 4, 7, iii. 16 ; Col. i. 27), but is nota
Hebraism (Ps. v. 8, Ixix. 17 a/.), being used also by Greek authors ; Plat.
Huth. p. 12 A, and see Loesner, Ὁ. 245.— χρηστότητος] is the goodness of God,
in accordance with which He is inclined to benefit (and not to punish).
Comp. Tittmann’s Synon. p. 195. —avoyy and μακροϑ.. patience and long-
suffering—the two terms exhausting the one idea—denote the disposition
of God, in accordance with which He indulgently tolerates the sins and de-
lays the punishments.* ---- ἀγνοῶν] inasmuch as it is unknown to thee, that ete.
By this accompanying definition of the καταφρονεῖς the (guilty) folly of the
despiser is laid bare as its tragic source. Bengel says aptly : ‘‘miratur
Paulus hancignorantiam.” The literal sense is arbitrarily altered by Pareus,
Reiche, de Wette, Maier, and others, who make it denote the not being «will-
ing to know, which it does not denote even in Acts xvii. 23 ; Rom. x. 3;
by K6élner, who, following Grotius, Koppe, and many others, holds it to
mean non considerans ; and also by Hofmann : ‘‘to perceive, as one ought.”
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 34. — ἄγει] of ethical incitement by influencing the will.‘
But it is not to be taken of the conatus (desires to urge), but of the standing
relation of the goodness of God to the moral condition of man.*° This re-
lation is an impelling to repentance, in which the failure of result on the part
of man does not cancel the act of the ἄγει itself.°

Ver. 5. A vividly introduced contrast to the preceding proposition ὅτε τὸ
χρηστὸν... . ἄγει ; not a continuation of the question (Lachmann, following
Koppe and others ; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), but affirmative (by
which the discourse becomes far more impressive and striking) as a setting
forth of the actual position of things, which is brought about by man
through his impenitence, in opposition to the drawing of the divine kind-
ness ; for the words can only, in pursuance of the correct interrogative ren-
dering of ver. 3, be connected with ver. 4, and not also (as Hofmann holds)

1 Comp. Dem. 602, 2, Aristoph. Vesp. 157 al. 4 Plat. Rep. Ὁ. 572 D, al. See Kypke and
2 Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 132. Reisig, ad. Soph. O. C. 253. Comp. viii. 14.
3See Wetstein, and the passages from δ Therefore no predestination to damna-

the Fathers in Suicer, Zhes. II. p. 994. tion can be supposed.
Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 194. 6 Comp. Wisd. xi. 23; Appian. ii. 63.

84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

with ver. 3. — κατά] in accordance with ; in a causal sense. Comp. on Phil.
iv. 11. On oxdnp x. ἀμεταν. kapd. comp. Acts vii. 31. It is correlative with
the previous εἰς μετάνοιαν. --- ϑησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν] Wolf aptly says: ‘ in-
nuitur.... irae divinae judicia paulatim coacervari, ut tandem universa
promantur.”? The purposely chosen word glances back to the previous τοῦ
πλούτου k.T.2. and σεαυτῷ, to thyself, heightens the tragic nature of the foolish
conduct that redounds fo one’s own destruction ; comp. ΧΙ]. 2. — ἐν ἡμέρᾳ opy. }
not to be taken with Luther, Beza, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Estius, and
many others as in diem irae (Phil. 1. 10 ; Jude 6; Tob. iv. 9), belongs to
ὀργήν : which breaks out on the day of wrath. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13. Re-
garding the repetition of ὀργῆς after ὀργήν Bengel correctly remarks : ‘‘ dev-
νότης Sermonis magna vi.” Whose wrath, is self-evident, without its being
necessary to connect ὀργής with Θεοῦ (Hofmann), which is forbidden by the
intervening ἀποκαλ. and by the previous absolutely put ὀργήν. The article
was not required by ἡμέρᾳ on account of the genitive definitions ; 1 Cor. vi.
2; Eph. iv. 30 ; Phil. i. 6, a/.2— Paul characterizes the day of judgment,
and with what powerful emphasis! by an accumulation of genitives and
weighty expressions, with reference to the fate of the bad as ἡμέρα ὁργῆς, but
with reference to its general destination (afterwards ver. 6 ff. to be further
carried out in detail) for good and bad as a day aroxad δικαιοκρισ. τ. Θεοῦ, 1.6.
on which God’s righteous judgment (which until then remains hidden) is re-
vealed, publicly exhibited. With the exception of passages of the Fathers,
such as Justin, de resurr. p. 223, δικαιοκρισία occurs only in an unknown
translation of Hos. vi. 5 (where the LXX. read κρίμα) and the Test. XII.
Patr. p. 547 and 581.

Ver. 6. Compare Ps. Ixii. 13; Prov. xxiv. 12; analogies from Greek
writers in Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 214. — κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ] 1.6. according
as shall be commensurate with the moral quality of his actions. [See Note
XVIL. p.106.] On this, and on the following amplification down to ver. 16,
it is to be observed :—(1) Paul is undoubtedly speaking of the judgment of
the world, which God will cause to be held by Christ, ver. 16; (2) The
subjects who are judged are Jews and Gentiles, ver. 9 ff., consequently all
men, ver. 16. The distinction, as to whether they are Christians or not, is
left out of view in this exposition, as the latter is partly intended to intro-
duce the reader to a knowledge of the necessity of justification by faith
(down to iii. 20) ; and it is consequently also left out of view that judgment
according to works cannot result in bliss for the unbelievers, because there
is wanting to them the very thing whose vital action produces the works in
accordance with which the Judge awards bliss, namely, faith and the
accompanying regeneration. (8) The standard of the decision is moral action
and its opposite, vv. 6-10 ; and this standard is really and in fact the only
one, to which at the last judgment all, even the Christians themselves, shall

1Comp. Calovius; and see Deut. xxxii. see Alberti, Obss. p. 297; Mtinthe itn doc.,
83-85; Prov. i. 18, ii. 7; Ecclus. iii. 4. For from Philo: Loesner, p. 246.
passages of profane writers, where θησαυρός 2 Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 125] ; Kiihner, IL.
and θησαυρίζειν are used to express the accu- 1, p. 524.
mulation of evils, punishments, and the like,

ΘΕΆ ΤΟ: δῦ

be subjected, and by which their fate for eternity shall be determined,
Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31 ff.; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7 ff.; Eph. vi. 8 ; Col. iii.
24; Rev. ii. 23, xx. 12, xxii. 12. But (4) the relation of moral action in
the case of the Christian to the jides salvifica, as the necessary effect and
fruit of which that action must be demanded at the judgment, cannot, for
the reason given above under (2), be here introduced into the discussion.
(5) On the contrary, the law only (in the case of the Jews the Mosaic, in the
case of the Gentiles the natural), must be presented as the medium of the
decision, ver. 12 ff.; a view which has likewise its full truth (compare what
was remarked under (3) above), since the Christian also, because he is to
be judged according to his action, must be judged according to law (compare
the doctrine of the tertius legis usus), and indeed according to the πλήρωσις
τοῦ νόμου introduced by Christ, Matt. v.17. Comp. xxv. 31 ff.; Rom. ΧΙ].
8-10,—although he becomes partaker of salvation, not through the merit of
works (a point the further development of which formed no part of the
Apostle’s general discussion here), but through faith, of which the works
are the practical evidence and measure.* Accordingly the ‘‘phrasis legis”
(Melanchthon) is indeed to be recognized in our passage, but it is to be
apprehended in its full truth, which does not stamp as a mere theoretic
abstraction (Baur) the contrast, deeply enough experienced by Paul him-
self, between the righteousness of works and righteousness of faith. It is
neither to be looked upon as needing the corrective of the Christian plan of
salvation ; nor as an inconsistency (Fritzsche) ; nor yet in such a light, that the
doctrine of justification involves a partial abrogation of the moral order of the
world (Reiche), which is, on the contrary, confirmed and established by it,
iii. 31. But our passage yields nothing in favour of the possibility, which
God may grant to unbelievers, of turning to Christ after death (Tholuck),
or of becoming partakers of the salvation in Christ in virtue of an exercise
of divine power (Th. Schott): and the representation employed for that
purpose,—that the life of faith is the product of a previous life-tendency,
and that the épya perfect themselves in faith (Luthardt, Tholuck),—is erro-
neous, because incompatible with the N. T. conception of regeneration as a
new creation, as a putting off of the old man, as a having died and risen
again, as a being begotten of God through the Spirit, etc., ete. The new
life (vi. 4) is the direct opposite of the old (vi. 19 ff.). The possibility
referred to is to be judged of in connection with the descensus Christi ad
inferos, but is irrelevant here.

Ver. 7. To those, who by virtue of perseverance in morally-good work 8061; to
obtain glory and honour and immortality, eternal life sc. ἀποδώσει. Conse-
quently καθ᾽ trou ἔργου ἀγαθ. contains the standard, the regulative principle,
by which the seeking after glory, honour, ete. is guided, and ἔργου ἀγαϑοῦ,"

1 Τῷ is rightly observed by Calovius: 2 The singular without the article indi-
“secundum opera, i.e. secundum testimo- cates the thing in abstracto ; the rule is for
nium operum,” is something different every given case: perseverance in good work.
from ‘‘ propter opera, i.e. propter meritum The idea that the work of redemption is re-
operum.” Comp. Apol. Conf. A, art.3,and ferred to (Mehring, in accordance with
Beza in loc. Phil. i. 6), so that ὑπομ. ἔργ. ay., Would be

86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

which is not with Beza to be connected with δόξαν, is the genitive of the
object to which the ὑπομονή refers (1 Thess. i. 8 ; Polyb. iv. 51, 1; Theophr.
Char. 6, 1) 3 while δόξαν x. τιμὴν k. ἀφϑαρσ. is an exhaustive description of the
future salvation according to its glorious appearing (2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Matt.
xiii. 43), according to the honour united with it (for it is the prize of vic-
tory, 1 Cor. ix. 25; Phil. mi, 14; 2 Tim. ν. 8... dames i. 124 1 Pet. v.4;
the joint heirship with Christ, viii. 17, the reigning along with Him, 2
Tim. ii. 12), and according to its imperishableness (1 Cor. xv. 52 ff.; Rev.
xxi. 4; 1 Pet. i. 4). Paul presents the moral effort under a character thus
specifically Christian, just because he can attribute it only to Christian Jews
and Gentiles ; and hence he is only able to give his description of this first
half of the subjects of future judgment, notwithstanding the generality of
his language, in the Christian form, in which alone it really takes place.
In keeping with this is also the ζωὴν αἰώνιον, t.e. eternal life in the kingdom
of the Messiah, v. 21, vi. 22 f.; Gal. vi. 8. The above construction of the
words is already followed by Theophilus, ad. Autol. i. 20, ed. Wolf, and by
most expositors, including Tholuck, Rickert, K6llner, de Wette, Olshausen,
Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Umbreit. The objection raised against it by
Reiche and Hofmann, that according to the analogy of ver. 6 ka trou. ἔργ.
ay. must contain the standard of the ἀποδώσει, and cannot therefore belong
to ζητοῦσι, is untenable, because xa’ trou. ἔργ. ay., though attached to
ζητοῦσι, nevertheless does contain (indirectly) the standard of ἀποδώσει ; so
that there remains only an immaterial difference, which however is in fact
very consonant to the lively versatility of the Apostle’s thought. Still less
weight attaches to the objection, that to seek glory and honour is not in
itself a praiseworthy thing ; for the moral tenor of the ζητεῖν δόξαν κ.τ.λ.
(comp. Matt. vi. 33 ; John v. 44) is most definitely assured by καϑ’ trop.
ἔργ. ay. Utterly unfounded, in fine, is the objection of clumsiness (Hof-
mann) ; the symmetrical fulness of vv. 7, 8, has a certain solemnity about
it. Reiche and Hofmann, following Oecumenius,’ Estius, and others, arrange
it so that to δόξαν. x. τιμ. kK. ἀφϑαρσίαν they supply ἀποδώσει, Whilst ζητοῦσι 15 to
be combined with ζωὴν αἰών. and regarded as an apposition or (Hofmann)
reason assigned to τοῖς μέν, Πα ka ὑπομ. ἔργ. ay. is the standard of ἀποδώσει.
Substantially so also Ewald, No syntactic objection can be urged against
this rendering; but how tamely and heavily is the ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰών. subjoined !
Paul would have written clearly, emphatically, and in harmony with the
contrast in ver. 8: τοῖς. . . . ἀγαϑοῦ ζωὴν αἱ. ζητοῦσι δόξαν κ. τιμ. K. abd.
Ver. 8. Τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριϑείας] sc. οὖσι : paraphrase of the substantive idea, to
be explained from the conception of the moral condition as drawing its
origin thence (comp. iii. 26 ; iv. 12, 14; Gal. iii. 10; Phil. i. 17, al.).

equivalent to ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, ought to have
been precluded by the parallel in ver. 10.
Comp. ver. 2. ‘

1 To ὑπερβατὸν οὕτω τακτέον' τοῖς καθ᾽ ὑπο-
μονὴν ἔργον ἀγαθοῦ ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἀπο-
δώσει δόξαν καὶ... . ἀφθαρσίαν. But there
is no ground whatever for the assumption
of a hyperbaton, in which Luther also has

entangled himself. Very harshly Bengel,
Fritzsche, and Krehl separate tots καθ᾽
ὑπομον. ἔργου ay. from what follows, and
supply οὖσι; and then take δόξαν.
ζητοῦσι aS apposition to Tots... . ἔργον,
but make ζωὴν ai. likewise dependent on
ἀποδώσει.

CHAP, ἘΠῚ 8. 87

See Bernhardy, Ὁ. 288 f. Comp. the use of υἱοί and τέκνα in Eph. ii. 2.
We are precluded from taking (with Hofmann) ἐκ in a causal sense (in con-
sequence of ἐριϑεία), and as belonging to are. κιτ.λ. by the καί, which would
here express the idea, unsuitable to the connection : even.’ This καί, the
simple and, which is not however with Hofmann to be interpreted as if
Paul had written μᾶλλον or τοὐναντίον (‘instead of seeking after eternal life,
rather,” etc.), clearly shows that τοῖς dé ἐξ ἐριϑείας is to be taken by itself, as
it has been correctly explained since the time of the Vulgate and Chrysos-
tom. —épdeia] is not to be derived from ἔρις or ἐρίζω, but from éputoc, a
hired labourer,* a spinner ; hence ἐρεϑεύω, to work for hire (Tob. 11. 11), then
also : to act selfishly, to lay plots. Compare ἐξερεϑεύεσϑαι, Polyb. x. 25, 9,
and ἀνεριϑεύτος (without party intrigues) in Philo, p. 1001 E. ἐριϑεία has
therefore, besides the primary sense of work for hire, the twofold ethical
signification (1) mercenary greed ; and (2) desire of intrigue, pursuit of par-
tisan courses ; Arist. Pol. v.2f. See Fritzsche, Hxzewrsus on ch. 11. ; regard-
ing the composition of the word, see on 2 Cor. xii. 20. The latter significa-
tion is to be retained in all passages of the N. T. 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v.
20; Phil. i. 16, ii. 3; James iii. 14, 16.—oi ἐξ ἐριϑείας are therefore the
intriguers, the partisan actors ; whose will and striving are conducive not to
the truth (for that in fact is a power of an entirely different kind, opposed
to their character), but to immorality, wherefore there is added, as further
characterizing them: καί ἀπειϑοῦσι. Compare Ignatius, ad Philad. 8,
where the opposite of ἐριϑ. is the χριστομάϑεια, 1.6. the discipleship of Christ,
which excludes all selfish partisan effort. Haughtiness (as van Hengel
explains it), and the craving jor self-assertion (Mehring and Hofmann) are
combined with it, but are not what the word itself signifies. The intepre-
tation formerly usual : qui sunt ex contentione (Vulg.), those fond of strife
(Origen, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza,
Calvin, etc.), which was understood, for the most part as those rebelling
against God, is based partly on the erroneous derivation from épic, partly on
the groundless assumption that in the other passages of the N. T. the sense
of quarrelsomeness is necessary. Since this is not the case, Reiche’s conject-
ure is irrelevant, that the vulgar usus loguendi had erroneously derived the
word from ἔρις and had lent to it the corresponding signification. Kéllner
explains it rightly as partisanship, but gratuitously assumes that this was a
special designation for ‘‘ godless character” in general. So in substance also
Fritzsche : ‘‘homines neguam.” The very addition, further describing
these men, καὶ ἀπειϑοῦσι. . . . ἀδικίᾳ, quite allows us to suppose that Paul
had before his mind the strict and proper meaning of the word partisanship ;
and it is therefore unwarrantable to base the common but linguistically
erroneous explanation on the affinity between the notions of partisanship and of
contentiousness (Philippi). The question to be determined is not the cate-
gory of ideas to which the épvdetew belongs, but the definite individual idea
which it expresses. —opy7 «. ϑυμός] sc. ἔσται. In the animation of his

1 Baeuml. Partik. Ὁ. 150, also Xen. Afem. i. Dem. 1313, 6; LXX. Is. xxxvili. 19. See
8, 1. Valck. ad Theocr. Adoniaz. p. 373. Com-
3 Tomer, xviii. 550, 560; Hesiod, ἔργ. 600f.: pare συνέριθος frequent in Greek authors.

88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

description Paul has broken off the construction previously followed. ° To
connect these words with what follows (Mehring) disturbs unnecessarily
the important symmetry of the passage. On the distinction between the
two words, see Tittman’s Synon. p. 131 ff. ϑυμός : vehement passion, in Cic.
Tuse. iv. 9, 21 rendered excandescentia, here, as also in Gal. v. 20, Eph. iv.
31, Col. iii. 8, Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, often also in the O. T. and the Apoc-
rypha, made known by its combination with ὀργή, and by its being put last
as the more vehement, as the holy divine wrath.*

Vv. 9, 10. Emphatic recapitulation of vv. 7 and 8, inverting the order,
and in addition, giving special prominence to the universality of the retri-
bution. The placing the penal retribution first gives to this an aspect the
more threatening and alarming, especially as the terms expressing it are now
accumulated in one breath. — ϑλέψις x. στενοχωρία] Tribulation and anguish,
se. ἔσται. The calamity is thus described as pressing upon them from with-
out (ϑλίψις), and as felt inwardly with the sense of its being beyond help
(orevox.), Vili. 85 ; 2 Cor. iv. 7, vi. 12 ; compare LXX. Is. xxx. 6 ; Deut.
Xxvili. 58. — ἐπὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν avdp.|] denotes not simply ‘‘ upon every man”
(so even Philippi), but ‘‘ wpon every soul which belongs to a man” who practises
evil. The ψυχή is thereby designated as that which is affected by the dim.
x. otevoy. (Acts ii. 43 5 Matt. xxvi. 28, al.) ; comp. Winer, p. 147 [E. T.
156]. It is the part which feels the pain.? — πρῶτον] Quite as ini. 16. The
Jews, as the people of God, in possession of the revelation with its prom-
ises and threatenings, are therefore necessarily also those upon whom the
retribution of judgment—not the reward merely, but also the punishment
—has to find in the jirst instance its execution. In both aspects they have
the priority based on their position in the history of salvation as the theo-
cratic people, and that as certainly as God is impartial. ‘‘ Judaei particeps
Graecus,” Bengel. The Jewish conceit is counteracted in the first clause
by ’Iovdaiov te πρῶτον, im the second by καὶ “Ἕλληνι, and counteracted with
sternly consistent earnestness. The second πρῶτον precludes our taking the
first as ironical (Reiche). — εἰρήνη] welfare, by which is intended that of the
Messiah’s kingdom, as in viii. 6. It is not materially different from the
ἀφϑαρσία and ζωὴ αἰώνιος of ver. 7 ; the totality of that which had already
been described in special aspects by δόξα and τιμή (comp. on ver. 7). — Re-
garding the distinction between épyaf. and κατεργαζ. (works and brings to
pass) see on i. 27. ;

Ver. 11. Ground assigned for vv. 9 and 10, so far as concerns the "Iovd.
mp. Kk. Ἕλλην. --- προσωποληψία] Partial preference from personal considera-
tions. See on Gal. ii. 6. Melancthon : ‘‘ dare aequalia inequalibus vel
inequalia aequalibus.” The ground specified is directed against the Jew-
ish theocratic fancy. Comp. Acts x. 34 f. ; Ecclus. xxxii. (xxxv.) 15.

Ver. 12. Assigns the ground in point of fact for the proposition con-
tained in ver. 11, in special reference to the future judgment of condemna-
tion.* — ἀνόμως] 1.6. without the standard of the law (without having had it).

1 Compare Isoc. xii. 81: ὀργῆς κ. θυμοῦ 2 See Ernesti, Urspr. d, Siinde, II. p. 101 ff.
μεστοί. Herodian, viii. 4, 1: ὀργῆ «. θυμῷ 2 Only in reference to the judgment of

χρώμενος. Lucian, decalumn, 28, al. condemnation, because the idea of a Messi-

CHAP, TI.5 19. 89

[See Note XIX. p. 107.] Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 21; Wisd. xvii. 2. Those whose
sins were not transgressions of the Mosaic law (but of the moral law of
nature), the sinful Gentiles, shall be transferred into the penal state of
eternal death without the standard of the law, without having their con-
demnation decided in accordance with the requirements of a νόμος to which
they are strangers. The ἀπολοῦνται, which is to set in at the final judgment,
not through natural necessity (Mangold), is the opposite of the σωτηρία, i.
16, of the ζήσεται, 1. 17, of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ii. 7, of the δόξα x.7.2., ii. 10 ;
comp. John iii. 15 ; Rom. xiv. 15; 1 Cor. i. 18. This very ἀπολοῦνται
should of itself have precluded commentators from finding in the second
ἀνόμως an element of mitigation (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius), as
if it was meant to exclude the severity of the law. The immoral Gentiles
may not hope to remain unpunished on account of their non-possession of
the law ; punished they shall be independently of the standard of the law.
This is the confirmation of the ἀπροσωποληψία of God on the one side, in re-
gard to the Gentiles.—The καί before ἀπολ. is the also of a corresponding
relation, but not between ἀνόμως and ἀνόμως, as if Paul had written καὶ avon.
ἀπολ., but between ἥμαρτον and aod. : as they have sinned without law, so
shall they also perish without law. In this way ἀνόμως retains the emphasis
of the specific how. Compare the following. The praeterite ἥμαρτον is
spoken from the standpoint of the time of the judgment. — καὶ ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ
x.t.A.] This gives the other aspect of the case, with reference to the Jevs,
who do not escape the judgment (of condemnation) on account of their
privilege of possessing the law, but on the contrary are to be judged by
means of the law, so that sentence shall be passed on them in virtue of 7
(see Deut. xxvii. 26; comp. John vy. 46). --- ἐν νόμῳ] Not on the law
(Luther), which would be εἰς νόμον, but the opposite of ἀνόμως: with the law,
é.€. In possession of the law, which they had as a standard,’ Winer, Ὁ. 361
[E. T. 386]. On νόμος without the article, used of the Mosaie law, see
Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 123]. So frequently in the Apocrypha, and of partic-
ular laws also in classical writers. To question this use of it in the N. T.
(van Hengel, Th. Schott, Hofmann, and others) opens the way for artificial
and sometimes intolerable explanations of the several passages. — κρειϑήσ.]
an unsought change of the verb, suggested by διὰ νόμου.

Ver. 13 proves the correctness of the proposition, so much at variance
with the fancy of the Jews, ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ νόμου kpvdjoovrar.—The
placing of vv. 13-15 in a parenthesis, as after Beza’s example, is done by
Grotius, Griesbach, and others, also by Reiche and Winer, is to be reject-
ed, because ver. 13, which cannot be placed in a parenthesis alone (as
Koppe and Mehring do), is closely joined with what immediately precedes,
and it is only in ver. 14 that an intervening thought is introduced by way

anic bliss of unbelievers was necessarily 1 This opposition does not extend beyond
foreign to the Apostle; as indeed in vv. 7 the νόμον μὴ ἔχειν and νόμον ἔχειν, ver. 14.
and 10 he was under the necessity of de- Therefore ἐν νόμῳ is ποῦ : within the law as

scribing those to whom Messianic bliss was the divine order of common life (comp. iii.
to be given in recompense, in terms of a 19) as Hofmann takes it.
Christian character.

90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS,

of illustration. The parenthesis is (with Baumgarten-Crusius) to be limit-
ed to vv. 14, 15, as is done also by Lachmann. See on ver. 16. — οἱ axpoa-
vai] A reference to the public reading of the Thorah on the Sabbath.
Comp. Acts xv. 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 14; John xii. 34; Josephus, Ant. v. 1,
26, v. 2, 7. The substantive brings out more forcibly than the participial
form of expression would have done the characteristic feature : those, whose
business is hearing.’— παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ] ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ 111. 20, according to God's
judgment. 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; Winer, p. 869 [E. T. 395).— δικαιω-
dno.) They shall be declared as righteous, normal. See oni.17. This οἱ ποιη-
ταὶ νόμου δικαιωϑήσονται is the general fundamental law of God who judges
with righteousness (Gal. iii. 12) ; a fundamental law which required to be
urged here in proof of the previous assertion ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ v. κριϑήσ.
Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. ὃ 87. How in the event of its being impossible
for aman to be a true ποιητὴς νόμου (ili. 9 ff.) faith comes in and furnishes
a δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως, and then how man, by means of the καινότης ζωῆς (vi.
4) attained through faith, must and can fulfil (viii. 4) the law completed
by Christ (the νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς, Vili. 2), were topics not belong-
ing to the present discussion. Compare on ver. 6. ‘‘ Haec descriptio est
justitia legis, quae nihil impedit alia dicta de justitia fidei,” Melanchthon.
Vv. 14-16. The οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωϑήσονται just asserted did not require
proof with regard to the Jews. But, as the regulative principle of the last
judgment, it could not but appear to need proof with regard to the Gentiles,
since that fundamental rule might seem to admit of no application to; those
who sin ἀνόμως and peri®h ἀνόμως. Now the Gentiles, though beyond the pale
of the Mosaic law and not incurring condemnation according to the standard
of that law, yet possess in the moral law of nature a certain substitute for
the Mosaic law not given to them. It is in virtue of this state of things
that they present themselves, not as excepted from the above rule οἱ ποιηταὶ
νόμου δικαιωϑ., but as subjected to it ; namely, in the indirect way that they,
although ἄνομοι in the positive sense, have nevertheless in the natural law
a substitute for the positive one—which is apparent, as often as Gentiles
do by nature that which the positive Mosaic law not given to them enjoins.
The connection may therefore be paraphrased somewhat thus: ‘* With
right and reason I say: the doers of the law shall be justified ; for as to the
case of the Gentiles, that ye may not regard them as beyond reach of that rule,
it is proved in fact by those instances, in which Gentiles, though not in possession
of the law of Moses, do by nature the requirements of this law, that they are the
law unto themselves, because, namely, they thereby show that its obligation stands
written in their hearts,” ete. It is to be observed at the same time that Paul
does not wish to prove a justification of the Gentiles really occurring as a
result through the fulfilment of their natural law—a misconception against
which he has already guarded himself in ver. 12,—but he desires simply to
establish the regulative principle of justification through the law in the case
of the Gentiles, Real actual justification by the law takes place neither
among Jews nor Gentiles ; because in no case is there a complete fulfil-

1 Compare Theile, ad Jac. i. 22, p. 76.

CHAP. 117 14. 91

ment, either, among the Jews, of the revealed law, or, among the Gentiles,
of the natural law—which in fact is only a substitute for the former, but
at the same time forms the limit beyond which their responsibility and
their judgment cannot in principle go, because they have nothing higher
(in opposition to Philippi, who refers to the πλήρωμα νόμου, xiii. 10).—The
connection of thought between ver. 14 and what precedes it has been very
variously apprehended. According to Koppe (compare Calvin, Flatt, and
Mehring) vy. 14-16 prove the condemnation of the Gentiles asserted in
ver. 12, and ver. 17 ff. that of the Jews ; while ver. 13 is a parenthesis.
But, seeing that in the whole development of the argument γάρ always re-
fers to what immediately precedes, it is even in itself an arbitrary proceed-
ing to make ὅταν γάρ in ver. 14, without any evident necessity imposed by
the course of thought, refer to ver. 12, and to treat ver. 13, although it
contains a very appropriate reason assigned for the second part of ver. 12,
as a parenthesis to be broken off from connection with what follows ;
and decisive against this view are the words ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων in ver, 15,
which place it beyond doubt that vv. 14-16 were not intended as a proof
of the ἀπολοῦνται in ver. 12. Philippi regards ver. 14 as establishing only
the first half of ver. 18 : ‘‘ not the hearers of the law are just before God,
for even the Gentiles have a law, 2.96. for even the Gentiles are ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ
νόμου." But we have no right to exclude thus from the reference of the
γάρ just the very assertion immediately preceding, and to make it refer to
a purely negative clause which had merely served to pave the way for this
assertion. The reference to the negative half of ver. 18 would only be
warranted in accordance with the text, had Paul, as he might have done,
inverted the order of the two parts of ver. 13, and so given to the negative
clause the second place.’ And the less could a reader see reason to refer
the yap to this negative clause in the position in which the Apostle has
placed it, since ver. 14 speaks of Gentiles who do the law, by which the
attention was necessarily directed, not to the negative, but to the affirma-
tive, half of ver. 13 (οἱ ποιηταὶ «.t.4.).2 Such a mode of presenting the
connection is even more arbitrary than if we should supply after ver. 13
the thought : ‘‘and therewith also the Gentiles” (K6llner and others), which
however is quite unnecessary. Our view is in substance that given already
by Chrysostom (οὐκ ἐκβάλλω τὸν νόμον, φησὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντεῦϑεν δικαιῶ τὰ ἔϑνη),
Erasmus, and others ; more recently by Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6ll-
ner, Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, van Hengel,
Ewald, Th. Schott, though with very various modifications.

Ver. 14. “Ὅταν] quando, supposes a case which may take place at any
time, and whose frequent occurrence is possible, as ‘‘eventus ad experi-
entiam revocatus” (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 689) : in the case if, 80 often as. —
yap| introducing the proof that the proposition of ver. 13 also holds of the

1 Only thus—but not as Paul has actually Hofmann, who, substantially like Philippi,
placed it—could the negative clause be re- takes vy. 14-16 as a proof, that in the matter
garded as the chief thought, for which Phi- of righteousness before God nothing can depend
lippi is obliged to take it, p. 54 f. 3d ed. on whether one belongs to the number of those

* These reasons may also be urged against who hear the law read to them.

92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Gentiles. See above. — ἔϑνη] not to be understood of the Gentiles collectively,
to which Reiche, de Wette, K6llner, Philippi refer it—for this must have
been expressed by the article (against which view neither ix. 30 nor iii. 29,
nor 1 Cor. i. 23, is to be adduced), and the putting of the case ὅταν. . . .
ποιῇ With respect to the heathen generally would be in itself untrue—but
Paul means rather Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs. — τὰ μὴ νόμον
ἔχοντα) they who have not the law ; a more precise definition bearing on the
case, and bringing forward the point on which here the argument turns.
See Winer, Ὁ. 127 [E. T. 139]. Observe the distinction between μὴ νόμον
ἔχ. and νόμον μὴ ἔχ. The former negatives—while the contrast of the φύσει
floats before the mind—the possession of the law, instead of which they
have merely a natural analogue of it ;* the latter negatives the possession
of the law, which és wanting to them, whilst the Jews have it. — dice: τὰ τοῦ
γόμου ποιῇ] Most expositors uphold this connection, including Riickert,
2d ed. Onthe other hand Bengel and Usteri join φύσει to μὴ vou. ἔχοντα,
but thus make it superfluous and even unsuitable, and deprive it of all
weight in the connection, especially as the word φύσις has here no other
sense ‘than nativa indoles, i.e. the original constitution given with existence,
and not moulded by any extraneous training, culture, or other influence
beyond the endowments of nature and their natural development (comp. on
Eph. ii. 8) ; φύσει : ‘quia natura eorum ita fert,” Stalb. ad Plat. Phaedr.
p-. 249. The dative denotes the mediating cause. And that it is the
moral prompting of conscience left to itself, which Paul means by φύσει in con-
trast to the divine leading of the law, is plain from ver. 15. The φύσει ποιεῖν
lies beyond the sphere of positive revelation and its promptings, leadings,
etc. It takes place in virtue of an indoles ingenita, not interventu disciplinae
divinae formata, so that the thought of an operation of grace or of the
Logos taking place apart from Christ is quite foreign to this passage, and
its affirmation is not in harmony with the truncus et lapis of the Formula
Concordiac.* — τὰ τοῦ νόμου] what belongs to the law, i.e. its constituent ele-
ments, its precepts. Paul does not say simply τὸν νόμον ; for he is thinking
not of Gentiles who fulfil the law as @ whole, but of those who in concrete
cases by their action respond to the particular portions of the law concerned.
Compare Luthardt 1.6. p. 409. The close relation, in which the ποιεῖν τὰ
τοῦ νόμου here stands to ποιηταὶ νόμου in ver, 13, is fatal to the view of Beza,
Joh. Cappell., Elsner, Wetstein, Michaelis, Flatt, and Mehring, who ex-
plain it as quae lex facit, namely, the commanding, convincing, condemn-
ing, Οἵα. --- ἑαυτοῖς εἰσὶ νόμος] They are the law unto themselves, i.e. their
moral nature, with its voice of conscience commanding and forbidding,
supplies to their own Ego the place of the revealed law possessed by the
Jews. Thus in that ποιεῖν they serve for themselves as a regulator of the
conduct that agrees with the divine law.* Observe further that here,
where the participle stands without the article—consequently not οἱ νόμ. μὴ

1 Compare Stalb. ad Plat. Crit. p. 47 Ὁ. 3 For parallels (Manil. vy. 495, a/.: ipse δὲ δὲ

2 See the later discussions of dogmatic lex est, Arist. Nicom. iv. 14: νόμος ὥνἑαυτῷ
writers as to this point in Luthardt, v. freien αἰ.) see Wetstein ; compare also Porph, ad
Willen, p. 366 ff. Mare. 25, p. 304.

ΘῊΡ ΡΣ ΣΤΈΓΟΣ 95

ἔχοντες (as previously τὰ μὴ. . . . &yovra)—it is to be resolved by since they,
because they ; which however does not convey the idea: because they are
conscious of the absence of the law (as Hofmann objects), but rather : be-
cause this want occurs in their case. See Buttmann’s nevt. Gr. Ὁ. 301
[E. T. 306]. The resolution by although (Th. Schott) is opposed to the
connection ; that by while (Hofmann) fails to convey the definite and logical
meaning ; which is, that Gentiles, in the cases indicated by ὅταν «.r.A.
would not be ἑαυτοῖς νόμος, if they had the positive law.—The οὗτοι com-
prehends emphatically the subjects in question.’

Ver. 15. Oirivec x.7.4.] quippe qui. See on i. 25. The οὗτοι of ver. 14
are characterized, and consequently the ἑαυτοῖς εἰσὶ νόμος, just asserted, is
confirmed : being such as show (practically by their action, ver. 14, make it
known) that the work of the law is written in their hearts, wherewithal their
conscience bears joint witness, ete. —That ἐνδείκνυνται should be‘understood of
the practical proof which takes place by the. ποιεῖν τὰ τοῦ νόμου (not by the
testimony of conscience, Bengel, Tholuck) is required by the σὺν in συμμαρ-
τυρούσης, Which is not a mere strengthening of the simple word (Kd6llner,
Olshausen ; comp. Tholuck, following earlier expositors ; see, on the other
hand viii. 16, ix. 1), but denotes the agreement of the internal evidence of
conscience with the external proof by fact.2 It is impossible to regard the
ἐνδείκνυνται as taking place on the day indicated in ver. 16 (Hofmann), since
this day can be no other than that of the last judgment. See on ver. 16.
-- τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου] The work relating to the law, the conduct corresponding
to it, fulfilling it. The opposite is ἁμαρτήματα νόμου, Wisd. 11. 12. Com-
pare on Gal. ii. 16. The singular is collective (Gal. vi. 4), as a summing up
of the ἔργα τ. νόμου (111. 20, 28, ix. 32 ; Gal. 11. 16, 11. 2, 5, 10). Compare
τὰ tov νόμου above. This stands written in their hearts as commanded, as
moral obligation,*® as ethical law of nature. — γραπτόν) purposely chosen with
reference to the written law of Moses, although the moral law is ἄγραφος. ἡ

!

1 Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 568; Buttmann 1.6. p.
262 f.

2 Where συμμαρτυρεῖν appears to be equiv-
alent to μαρτυρ., it is only an apparent equiv-
alence; there is always mentally implied an
agreement with the person for whom wiiness
is borne, as é.g. Thue. viii. 51,2; Plat. Zipp.
Maj. p. 282 B: συμμαρτυρῆσαι δέ σοι ἔχω ὅτι
ἀληθῆ λέγεις, if that is meant is not a testi-
mony agreeing with others (as Xen. Hist. Gr.
Vii. -1, 2, iii. 3, 2), or, as here, one that agrees
with a thing, aphenomenon, a proof by fact,
or the like. Compare Isoc. p. 47 A. In the
passage, Plat. Legg. iii. p. 680 D, ξυμμαρτυρεῖν
is expressly distinguished from μαρτυρ ; for,
after the τῷ σῷ λόγῳ ἔοικε μαρτυρεῖν preced-
ing, the vai: ξυμμαρτυρεῖ yap must mean: he
is my joint-witness, whose evidence agrees
with what I say. If the reference of συμ.
in our passage to the proof by fact be not
adopted, then αὐτοῖς would need be sup-
plied ; but wherefore should we do so? Ac-

cording to Tholuck συμ. indicates merely
the agreement of the person witnessing
with the contents of his testimony. This
is never the case, and would virtually de-
prive the συμ. of all significance.

8 This inward law is not the conscience it-
self, but the regulative contents of the con-
sciousness of the conscience ; consequently,
if we conceive the latter, and with justice
(in opposition to Rud. Hofmann, Lehre vom
Gewissen, 1866, p. 54, 58 f.), as presented in
the form of a syllogism, it forms the sub-
ject of the major premise of this syllogism.
Comp. Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 136 f.

4Plato, Legg. Ὁ. 481 B, Thue. ii. 87, 3,
and Kriiger, in loc. p. 200; Xen. Mem. iv.
4, 19; Soph. Ant. 450; Dem. 317, 23, 689, 22;
Dion. Hal. vii. 41). Compare Jer. xxxi. 33;
Heb. viii. 10, and the similar designations
among the Rabbins in Buxtorf, Lea Talm.
p. 852, 1849.

94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

The supplying of ὄν serves to explain the adjective, which is used instead
of the participle to denote what continues and is constant.’— συμμαρτυρούσης
αὐτῶν συνειδήσεως, καὶ μεταξὺ x«.7.A.] while they make known outwardly by
their action that the ἔργον of the law is written in their hearts, their inner
moral consciousness accords with it ; namely (1), in reference to their own,
personal relation : the testimony of their own consciences ; and (2), in regard
to their mutual relation : the accusations or vindications® that are carried on
between Gentiles and Gentiles (μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων) by their thoughts, by their
moral judgments. This view of the sense is required by the correlation of
the points αὐτῶν and μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων placed with emphasis in the foreground
(μεταξὺ occurring in Paul’s writings only here, and therefore all the more
intentionally chosen in this case) ; so that thus both the personal individual
testimony of conscience (αὐτῶν) and the mutual judgment of the thoughts
(μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων), are adduced, as accompanying internal acts, in confirma-
tion of the ἐνδείκνυνται. The Gentiles, who do the requirement of the law,
practically show thereby that that requirement is inscribed on their hearts ;
and this is attested at the same time, so far as concerns the actors themselves,
by their (following) conscience, and, so far as concerns their relation to other
Gentiles, by the accusations or the vindications which they reciprocally practise
in their moral thoughts, the one making reflections of a condemnatory or of
a justifying nature on the other.* The prominence thus given to αὐτῶν and
μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, and the antithetical correlation of the two points, have been
commonly misunderstood (though not by Castalio, Storr, Flatt, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius), and consequently κ. μετ. ἀλλ. τῶν διαλογ. κιτ.2. has been taken
merely as an explanatory description of the process of conscience, in which the
thoughts accuse or vindicate one another (i.e. one thought the other) ; so that
ἀλλήλων is referred to the thoughts, and not, as is nevertheless required by
the αὐτῶν standing in contradistinction to it, to the ἔϑνη. This view ought
even to have been precluded by attending to the fact that, since συμμαρτ.

. . συνειδήσεως Must, in harmony with the context, mean the approving
conscience [See Note XX. p. 108.], what follows cannot well suit as an exposi-
tion, because in it the κατηγορούντων preponderates. Finally, it was an arbi-
trary expedient, rendering μεταξὺ merely superfluous and confusing, to
separate it from ἀλλήλ., and to explain the former as meaning at a future
time, viz. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ x.T.A. (Koppe), or between, at the same time (Kollner,
Jatho).

Ver. 16 has its connection with what goes before very variously defined.
While Ewald goes so far as to join it with ver. 5, and regards everything
intervening as a parenthesis, many, and recently most expositors, have con-
nected it with the immediately preceding cuypapr. . . . . ἀπολογ. ; in which

1 Compare Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. i.
5,1; Symp. 4, 25. See the truly classic de-
scription of this inner law, and that as di-
vine, in Cicero, de Repubdl. iii. 23; of the
Greeks, comp. Soph. 0. 7. 838 ff., and Wun-
der, 27 loc.

2 The καί added to the 7 is based on the

view taken of the moral state of the Gen-
tiles, that the κατηγορεῖν forms the rule. See
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126.

3 Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 277: “Τὸ
is testified by the conscience, which teaches
them to judge the quality of their own and
others’ actions.”

CHAP, 11.,.16. 95

case, however, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ cannot be taken for εἰς ἡμέραν (Calvin), nor the pres-
ent participles in a future sense (Fritzsche), since, in accordance with the
context, they are contemporary with ἐνδείκνυνται. And for that very reason
we must reject the view, which has been often assumed, that Paul suddenly
transports himself from the present into the time of the judgment, when
the exercise of conscience in the Gentiles will be specially active, and that
for this reason he at once adds ἐν ἡμέρᾳ x.t.A. directly without inserting a
καὶ τοῦτο μάλιστα, OY καὶ τοῦτο γενήσεται, Or the like (Riickert, Tholuck, de
Wette, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit ; comp. Estius). The
supposition of such an illogical and violent leap of thought in so clear and
steady a thinker as Paul is thoroughly arbitrary and wholly without analogy.
Moreover, the simple temporal self-judgment of the Gentiles fits into the +
connection so perfectly, that Paul cannot even have conceived of it as an
anticipation of the last judgment (Mehring). Quite an incorrect thought,
repugnant to ver. 12 and to the whole doctrinal system of the Apostle, is
obtained by Luthardt (v. freien Willen, p. 410 f.), when, very arbitrarily
joining it only with ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων, he discovers here the hope ‘that to
such the reconciling grace of Christ shall one day be extended.” This is
not confirmed by ver. 26. <A relative natural morality never in the N. T.
supplies the place of faith, which is the absolutely necessary condition of
reconciling grace. Compare iii. 9, 22, vil. 14 ff. αἱ. Lastly Hofmann, who
formerly held a view similar to Luthardt’s (see Schriftbew. I. p. 669), now
connects ἐν ἡμέρᾳ x.t.A. to ἐνδείκνυνται in such a way, that he explains ver.
16 not at all of the final judgment, but, in contrast even to the latter, of
every day on which God causes the Gospel to be proclaimed among the Gentiles ;
every such day shall be for all, who hear the message, a day of inward judg-
ment ; whoever believingly accepts it, and embraces salvation, thereby
proves that he himself demands from himself what the revealed law enjoins
on those who possess it. This interpretation, which would require us to
read with Hofmann κρίνει (the present) instead of κρινεῖ, is as novel as it is
erroneous. For the expressions in ver. 16 are so entirely those formally
used to denote the last judgment (comp. on ἡμέρᾳ 1 Cor. 1. 8, v. 5 ; 2 Cor. 1.
14 al. ; on κρινεῖ, vv. 2, 3, 5, 111. 6 al. ; on Θεός as the judge, 111. 6, xiv. 10,
12, al. ; on τὰ κρυπτά, 1 Cor. iv. 5; on διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ X. 2 Cor. v. 10; Acts
xvii. 31) that nothing else could occur to any reader than the conception
of that judgment, which moreover has been present to the mind since
ver. 2, and from which even κατὰ τὸ evayy. μου does not draw away the at-
tention. Every element in Hofmann’s exposition is subjectively introduced,
so that Paul could not have wrapped up the simple thought, which is sup-
posed to be expressed in so precious a manner, in a more strange disguise
—a thought, moreover, which is here utterly irrelevant, since Paul has to
do simply with the natural law of the Gentiles in its relation to the revealed
νόμος of Judaism, and apart as yet from all reference to the occurrence of
-their conversion ; and hence also the comparison with Heb. iv. 12 is here
out of place. The proper view of the passage depends on our treating as a
parenthesis, not (with Winer and others) vv. 138-15, but with Lachmann, vv.
14, 15. This parenthetical insertion is already indicated as such by the fact,

96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

that the great judicial proposition previously expressed : οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου
᾿ δικαιωϑήσονται is in vv. 14, 15 proved only with reference to a part of man-
kind, with regard to which it might seem possibly doubtful : it is required
by the circumstance, that without it ἐν ἡμέρᾳ has no proper logical reference
whatever ; and lastly, it is confirmed by the consideration that, if it is
adopted, the whole is wound up not with an illustration having reference to
the Gentiles, but—and how emphatically and solemnly !—with the leading
thought of the whole discussion.1\— τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν avdp.] The hidden things
of men, 1.6. everything in their inner or outer life which does not come to
the knowledge of others at all, or not according to its moral quality. This
special characteristic of the judgment is given with reference to ver. 13, inas-
much as it is just swch a judging that is necessary for, and the preliminary
to, the realization of what is affirmed in ver. 19. -- κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλ. μου] con-
tains, according to the wswal view, the accordance of the assertion κρινεῖ ὁ
Θεός τὰ κρυπτὰ τ. ἀνϑρ. διὰ 1. Xp. with the Apostle’s official proclamation of
salvation. But the fact that God will judge, etc., was so universally known
and so entirely undoubted, that the addition in that sense would have been
in the highest degree superfluous ; and indeed the μου in that case would
have no significance bearing on the matter, since no one proclaiming the
Gospel could call in question that truth. We must therefore explain it,
with Pareus, Calovius, and many others, including Umbreit and Hofmann,
as referring to the manner of the κρινεῖ. Paul was so certain of the sole
truth of the Gospel committed to him (xvi. 25 ; Eph. iv. 20 f.) which he
had by revelation of God (Gal. i. 11 f.) that he could not but be equally
certain that the future judgment would not be held otherwise than according
to his Gospel, whose contents are conceived as the standard of the sentence.
In that same Gospel he knew it to be divinely determined, to whom the
στέφανος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, the eternal life and its δόξα, or on the other hand its
opposite, eternal ἀπώλεια, should be awarded by the judge. But he knew
at the same time the axiom announced in ver. 13, with which ver. 16 con-
nects itself, to be not at variance therewith (comp. iii. 31) ; as indeed on
the contrary, it is just in the Gospel that perfection in the fulfilment of the
law is demanded, and accordingly (see ch. vi. 8, xiii. 8 ff.) the judicial rec-
ompense is determined conformably to the conduct, viii. 4; 2 Cor. v. 10;
Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9f. ; Gal. v. 19-23. On μου Calvin’s note sufiices :
swum appellat ratione ministerii, and that, to distinguish it from the preach-
ing not of other apostles, but of false, and especially of Judaizing teachers.
Comp. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. The mistaken view is held by Origen,
Jerome, and other Fathers,*? that Paul meant by Ais Gospel that of Luke. —
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xp.| AS He is the Mediator of eternal salvation, so also itis He
who is commissioned by God to hold the judgment. Comp. Acts xvii: 30,
Sit ἢ (ΟΝ. ov; Γ᾽ ΟἿΣ. ν᾿ 10 ala John ν. 27.6 Math, socve ol:
Vv. 17-24. The logical connection of this ‘‘ oratio splendida ac vehemens”

1 There is therefore the less reason for which was copied into the text at the wrong
assuming with Laurent that ver. 16 wasa___ place.
marginal note of the Apostle on yer. 13, 2 See Fabricius, Cod. apocr. p. 371 f.

CHAP. 11., 17-20. oF

(Estius), introduced once more in lively apostrophe,’ with what precedes is
to be taken thus: Paul has expressed in vv. 13-16 the rule of judgment,
that not the hearers but the doers of the law shall in the judgment be jus-
tified. He wishes now vividly to bring home the fact, that the conduct of
the Jews, with all their conceit as to the possession and knowledge of the
law, is in sharp contradiction to that standard of judgment. The dé and
the emphatic σύ are to be explained from the conception of the contrast,
which the conduct of the Jews showed, to the proposition that only the
doers δικαιωϑήσονται. As to the construction of vv. 17-23, the common as-
sumption of an anakoluthon, by which Paul in ver. 21 abandons the plan
of the discourse started with ei, and introduces another turn by means of
οὖν" is quite unnecessary. The discourse, on the contrary, is formed with
regular and logically accurate connection as protasis (vv. 17-20) and apo-
dosis, namely thus: But if thou art called a Jew, and supportest thyself on
the law, etc., down to ver. 20, dost thou (nterrogative apodosis, vv. 21, 22),
who accordingly (οὖν, in accordance with what is specified in vv. 17-20)
teachest others, not teach thyself? Stealest thou, who preachest against stealing ὃ
Committest thou adultery, who forbiddest adultery? Plunderest thou temples,
who abhorrest idols? These questions present the contrast to the contents of
the protasis as in the highest degree surprising, as something that one is at
a loss how to characterize—and then follows in ver. 23, with trenchant pre-
cision, the explanation and decision regarding them in the categorical
utterance : Thou, who boastest thyself of the law, dishonourest God by the trans-
gression of the law, a result which is then in ver. 24 further confirmed by a
testimony from the O.T. Ver. 23 also might indeed (as commonly explained)
be taken as a question ; but, when taken as declaratory, the discourse pre-
sents a form far more finished, weighty and severe. Paul himself, by
abandoning the participial expression uniformly employed four times pre-
viously, seems to indicate the cessation of the course hitherto pursued. Ac-
cording to this exposition of the connection, in which it must not be over-
looked that the force of the οὖν in ver. 21 is limited solely to the relation of the
ὁ διδάσκων ἕτερον and the following participles to what has been said before,*
we must reject the view of Benecke, Gléckler, and Hofmann that the apo-
dosis only begins with ver. 23, but in ver. 21 f. there is a continuation of
the hypothetical protasis—an idea which cannot be tolerated, especially at
the beginning of the new form of discourse (the antithetical), without rep-
etition of the ei. Paul would have written εἰ οὖν ὁ διδάσκων κ.τ.. (compare
Baeumlein, Partiz. p. 178). Th. Schott erroneously finds in ἐπαναπαύῃ and
kavyaoa the apodosis, which is then explained.

Vy. 17-20 contain the protasis, whose tenor of censwre (called in question

1To the Jews, not to the Jewish-Chris-
tians. Respecting the composition and
character of the Roman congregation noth-
ing can be inferred from this rhetorical form
of expression. Comp. Th. Schott, p. 188 f.

2 See Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 569], Buttmann,
Dp. 331 [E. T. 386].

5 This is the well-known epanaleptic οὖν,

gathering up and resuming what had been
said previously. Regarding the frequency
of its use also in Greek writers to introduce
the apodosis, especially after a lengthened
protasis, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 22 f.;
Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 718. Comp. Bengel on
Wary ale

98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

without ground by Th. Schott and Hofmann) reveals itself at first gently,
but afterwards, ver. 19 f., with greater force.—’ Τουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ] if thou art
named ‘‘ Jew.” This was the theocratic title of honour opposed to heathen-
“ism (Τ᾿ 1, see Philo, Alleg. I. p. 55 B, de plant. Noé, p. 233 A). Comp.
Rev. ii. 9. So much the less therefore is ἑπονομάζ. to be here understood of
a surname (Bengel). Full effect is given to the compound in classic writers
aiso by the notion of name-giving, imposing the name.’ Van Hengel arbitra-
rily imports the idea: pro veteri nomine (Israelitarum) novwm substituens.
— énavarain τῷ νόμῳ] acquiescis, thow reliest (Mic. ili. 11; 1 Mace. viii. 12 ;
see Wetstein) on the law, comp. John v. 45, as if the possession and knowl-
edge of it were to thee the guarantee of salvation. The rest, of not being
obliged jirst of all to scek what God’s will is (Hofmann), cannot be meant ;
since such a seeking cannot be separated from the possession of the law,
but is on the contrary directed to that very law (see ver. 18). But in the
law the Jew saw the magna charta of his assurance of salvation. Ue relied
upon it. —év Θεῷ] As being the exclusive Father and Protector of the
nation. Comp. Gen. xvii. 7; Is. xlv. 25; Jer. xxxi. 33. Observe the
climax of the three points in ver. 17. The ἐν with καυχ. (2 Cor. x. 15;
Gal. vi. 13), a verb which in Greek authors is joined with ἐπί or εἰς or the
accusative, denotes that, wherein the xavy. rests, according to the analogy
of χαίρειν, τέρπεσϑαι év.2— Ver. 18, τὸ ϑέλημα)] Kar’ ἐξοχήν. Whose will it
was, that was to be obeyed on the part of man, was obvious of itself. Comp.
on ὄνομα Acts v. 41. — δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέρ. Thou approvest the excellent. Re-
specting the lexical correctness of this rendering comp. on Phil. i. 10. Its
correctness in accordance with the connection is plain from the climactic re-
lation, in which the two elements of ver. 18 must stand to each other.
‘“Thou knowest the will of God and approvest (theoretically) the excellent”
—therewith Paul has conceded to the Jews all possible theory of the ethical,
up to the limit of practice. Others, taking δοκιμάζειν as to prove, explain τὰ
διαφέροντα as meaning that which is different ; and this either (comp. Heb.
v. 14) of the distinction between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact,
Estius, Grotius and others, including Reiche, Riickert, Tholuck, Fritzsche,
Krehl, Philippi, van Hengel, Th. Schott), or that which is different from the
will of God, i.e. what is wrong, sinful (Clericus, Gléckler, Mehring,
Hofmann ; compare Beza). But, after: γινώσκεις τὸ ϑέλημα, how tame and
destructive of the climax is either explanation! The Vulgate rightly ren-
ders: ‘‘probas utiliora.” Compare Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel,
Flatt, Ewald. — κατηχούμ. ἐκ τ. νόμου] Being instructed out of the law (through
the public reading and exposition of it in the synagogues, comp. ἀκροάται,
ver. 13), namely as to the will of God, and as to that which is excellent.
—Vv. 19, 20 now describe, with a reference not to be mistaken (in oppo-
sition to Th. Schott and Hofmann) to the Jewish presumption and disposition
to proselytize (Matt. xxili. 15), the influence which the Jews, in virtue of
their theoretic insight, fancied that they exercised over the Gentiles. The

1 See Plat. Crat. Ὁ. 397 E, Ὁ. 406 A ; Phaedr. Polyb. i. 29, 2; comp. Gen. iv. 17, 25 f.
p. 2388 A.al.; Xen. Oec. 6,17; Thue. ii. 29, 3; 2 Bernhardy, p. 211; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 408,

CHAP: Deel 22) 99

accumulated asyndetic designations of the same thing lend lively force to
the description. They are not to be regarded with Reiche as reminiscences
from the Gospels (Matt. xv. 14; Luke xx. 32, 11. 32) ; for apart from the
fact that at least no canonical Gospel had at that time been written, the
figurative expressions themselves which are here used were very current
among the Jews and elsewhere. See, 6.0. Wetstein on Matt. xv. 14. Ob-
serve, further, that Paul does not continue here with the conjunctive «at,
but with the adjunctive τέ, because what follows contains the conduct de-
termined by and dependent on the elements of ver. 18, and not something
independent.*— ceavriv ὁδηγ. x.t.4.] that thow thyself for thy part, in virtue
of this aptitude received from the law, etc. πέποιϑα, accompanied by the
accusative with the infinitive, occurs only here in the N. T., and rarely in
Greek authors (Aesch. Sept. 444). — παιδευτὴν x.t.4.] trainer of the foolish,
teacher of those in nonage.? —7iv μόρφωσιν τ. γνώσ. Kk. τ. ἀλήϑ] the form of
knowledge and of the truth. Inthe doctrines and precepts of the law, re-
ligious knowledge and divine truth, both in the objective sense, attain the
conformation and exhibition (Ewald : ‘‘embodiment”) proper to them, 6.6.
corresponding to their nature (hence τὴν μόρῳ.), so that we possess in the
law those lineaments which, taken collectively, compose the σχηματισμὸς
(Hesychius) of knowledge and truth and thus bring them to adequate in-
tellectual cognizance. Truth and knowledge have become in the law
ἔμμορφος (Plut. Num. 8, Mor. Ὁ. 428 F), or μορφοειδής (Plut. Mor. p. 735 A).
Paul adds this ἔχοντα τὴν μόρῳ. τ. yv. κ. τ. aA. asan illustrative definition (ué
qui habeas, etc.) to all the points previously adduced ; and in doing so he
places himself entirely at the Jewish point of view (comp. Wisd. xxiv. 82 ff.),
and speaks according to their mode of conception ; hence the view which
takes μόρῳ. here as the mere appearance (2 Tim. iii. 5), in contrast to the
reality, is quite erroneous (in opposition to τινές in Theophylact, Oecumenius,
Pareus, Olshausen). Even Paul himself could not possibly find in the law
merely the appearance of truth (iii. 21, 31).°

Vv. 21, 22. Apodosis interrogating with lively indignation. See gen-
erally, and respecting οὖν, above on vv. 17-24. The form of the questions
is expressive of surprise at the existence of an incongruity somuch at variance
with the protases, ver. 17 f.; it must have been in fact impossible. So also
in 1 Cor. vi. 2.—Dost thou, who teachest others accordingly, not teach thine own
self? namely, a better way of thinking and living than thou showest by thy
conduct.*— The following infinitives do not include in themselves the idea
of δεῖν or ἐξεῖναι," but find their explanation in the idea of commanding, which
is implied in the finite verbs.°—6 βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς) Thou,
who abhorrest idols, dost thou plunder temples? This is necessarily to be

1 Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. TI. p. 790. trast (comp. LXX. Ps. 1. 16 ff.; Ignat. Hph.

2 Comp. Plat. Pol. x. p. 598 C: παῖδάς τε καὶ 15) from Greek and Rabbinical authors may
ἄφρονας. be seen in Wetstein.

3 On μόρφωσις compare Theophrastus h. 5 See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 753 f.
pl. iii. 7, 4, and διαμόρφωσις in Plut. Mor. p. 6 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 1, Anab.
1023 C. v. 7, 84: Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 846 B;

4 Analogous passages expressing this con- © Wunder, ad Soph. O, C. 837.

100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

understood of the plundering of idols’ temples (with Chrysostom, The-
ophylact,’ Clericus, Wetstein, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Fritzsche, de Wette,
Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring (Riickert indecisively) ; as isrequired by the anti-
thetic relation in which ἱεροσυλεῖς stands to the βδελυσσόμ. τὰ εἴδωλα. ‘Thou
who holdest all contact with idols as a detestable pollution—dost thou
lay plundering hands on their temples?” Abhorrence of idols and (not, it
might be, temple-destruction, Deut. vil. 25, but greedy) temple-plunder-
ing ?—Paul could not have placed at the close of his reproachful questions
a contrast between theory and practice more incisively affecting Jewish feel-
ing. That robbery of temples actually occurred among the Jews, may just-
ly be inferred from Acts xix. 37, but especially from Josephus, Andtt. iv. 8,
10.° It is differently explained by Pelagius, Pareus, Toletus, Grotius, Heu-
mann, Michaelis, Cramer, Reiche, Gléckler, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald,
and Hofmann, who understand it of robbing the Jewish temple by the em-
bezzlement or curtailment of the temple-moneys and sacrifices (for proofs of
this crime, see Josephus, Antt. viii. 3, 5 f.), by withholding the temple
tribute, and the like.* Luther, Calvin, Bengel, and others, including Morus,
Flatt, Kéllner, and Umbreit, interpret it, with still more deviation from the
proper sense, as denoting the ‘‘ profanatio divinae majestatis” (Calvin) gen-
erally. Compare Luther’s gloss, ‘‘ Thou art a robber of God ; for it is
God’s glory which all who would be holy through works take from Him.”
Such unjustifiable deviations from the literal sense would not have been re-
sorted to, if attention had been directed on the one hand to the actual unity
of the object in the whole of the antitheses, and on the other to the appro-
priate climax : theft, adultery, robbery of idols’ temples.

Ver. 23 gives to the four questions of reproachful astonishment the de-
cisive categorical answer. See above on vv. 17-24. [See Note XXI. p. 108.]
— διὰ τῆς παραβ. τ. νόμου] To this category belonged especially the ἱεροσυ-
λεῖν ; for in Deut. vii. 25 f. the destruction of heathen statues is enjoined,
but the robbery of their gold and silver is repudiated. — τὸν ϑεὸν ἀτιμάζεις]
How ? is shown in ver. 24. —rdv ϑεὸν] who has given the law.

Ver. 24. For confirmation of his τὸν ϑεὸν ἀτιμάζεις Paul subjoins a Script-
ure quotation, namely Is. lii. 5, in substance after the LXX., not the far
more dissimilar passage Ezek. xxxvi. 22 f. (Calvin, Ewald, and others),
which, according to Hofmann, he is supposed to express according to the
Greek translation of Is. 7.6. ‘‘more convenient” for him. But he applies

1 Theophylact (whom Estius follows) very
properly refers the ἱεροσυλεῖς to the temples
of idols, but limits it to the taking away of
the ἀναθήματα. His exposition, moreover,
aptly brings out the practical bearing of
the point: ἱεροσυλίαν λέγει THY ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν
ἀνατιθεμένων τοῖς εἰδώλοις, καὶ γὰρ εἰ καὶ ἐβδε-
λύσσοντο τὰ εἴδωλα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τῇ φιλοχρηματίᾳ
τυραννούμενοι ἥπτοντο τῶν εἰδωλικῶν ἀναθημά-
των δι᾽ αἰσχροκερδίαν.

3.Πὴ6 objection urged by Reiche and van
Hengel, that ἱεροσυλεῖν always refers to tem-
ples which the speaker really looks upon as

holy places, is irrelevant for this reason,that
Paul was obliged to take the word, which
he found existing in the Greek, in order to in-
dicate temple-robbery, while he has al-
ready sufficiently excluded the idea that the
temples themselves were sacred in his eyes
by τὰ εἴδωλα.

3See also Rabbinical passages in Do-
litzsch’s Hebrew translation, p. 77.

4 Compare Test. Χ 17. Patr. Ὁ. 578.

5 Olshausen thinks that avarice, as inward
idolatry, is meant.

GH APs LE) eae 101

the quotation in such a way that he makes it his own by the yap not found in
the original or the LXX.; only indicating by καϑὼς γέγραπται at the close,
that he has thus appropriated a passage of Scripture. Hence καϑὼς yéy. is
placed at the end, as is never done in the case of express quotations of Script-
ure. The historical sense ’ of the passage is not here concerned, since Paul
has not quoted it as a fulfilled prophecy, though otherwise with propriety
in the sense of iii. 19. — dv’ ὑμᾶς] i.e. on account of your wicked conduct. —
βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσι) among the Gentiles, inasmuch, namely, as these in-
fer from the immoral conduct of the Jews that they have an unholy God
and Lawgiver, and are thereby moved to blaspheme His holy name. Comp.
Clement, Cor. I. 47.

Ver. 25. Having in vv. 17-24 (not merely taken for granted, but) thrown
a bright light of illumination on the culpability of the Jews in presence of
the law, Paul now briefly and decisively dissipates the fancy of a special
advantage, of which they were assured through cirewmeision. ‘* For
cireumeision indeed, the advantage of which thou mightest perchance urge
against this condemnation, is useful, if thou doest the law ; but if thou art a
’ transgressor of the law, thou hast as circumcised no advantage over the uncircum-
cised.”’ — γάρ therefore annexes a corroboration of the closing result of vv.
23, 24, and does so by excluding every advantage, which the Jew trans-
gressing this law might fancy himself possessed of, as compared with the
Gentile, in virtue of circumcision. Stat sententia! in spite of thy circum-
cision ! Hofmann is the less justified, however, in taking the μέν elliptically,
with the suppression of its antithesis,? since against its correspondence with
the immediately following dé no well-founded logical objection exists. —
περιτομῇ] circumcision, without the article. It is not however, with K6llner
and many others, to be taken asa description of Judaism generally ; but
definitely and specially of cirewmcision, to which sacrifice of the body—con-
secrating men to membership of the people of God (Ewald, Alterth. p. 127),
and meant to be accompanied by the inner consecration of moral holiness
(see on ver. 28)—the theocratic Jewish conceit attributed the absolute value
of a service rendering them holy and appropriating the Abrahamic promises.
— ὠφελεῖ] seeing that it transfers into the communion of all blessings and
promises conferred by God on His covenant people ; which blessings and
promises, however, are attached to the observance of His law as their con-
dition (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.; Lev. xviii. 5 ; Deut. xxvii. 26 ; Gal. v. 3), so that
circumcision points at the same time to the new covenant, and becomes a
sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith (see oniv. 11). This how-
ever the Apostle has not yet in view here [See Note XXII. p. 108. ]. — ἐὰν vow.
κιτ.}.} Not on the presupposition that, but rather, as also the two following
ἐάν : in the case that, Winer, p. 275[E. T. 293]. — ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν] Has be-
come now, has lost, for thee, every advantage which it was designed to
secure to thee over the uncircumcised, so that thou hast now no advantage

1 Τῦ refers to God’s name being dis- 2 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 414, and gener-
honoured through the enslaying of the ally Baeumlein, Part. p. 163.
Jews by their tyrants.

«-

102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

over the latter, and art, just as he is, no member of God’s people. Paul con-
ceives of the latter as a holy people, like the invisible church of God, in
which the mortua membra of the people have no part.1— γέγονεν] Present
of the completed action ; vii. 2; xiv. 23 ; John xx. 23.
ethical result, which takes place.

Ver. 26. Interrogative inference of the corresponding inverse relation,
drawn from ver. 25. — ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ] referring to the concrete ἀκρόβυστος
understood in the previous ἀκροβυστία. ---τὰ δικαιώματα τ. νόμου φυλ.1 The
same as τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιεῖν in ver. 14, as also the following τ. νόμον τελοῦσα of
ver. 27.° A ‘‘perfect, deep inner” fulfilment of the law (Philippi), is a
gratuitous suggestion, since there is no modal definition appended. Paul
means the observance of the Mosaic legal precepts (respecting δικαιώματα
comp. on i. 32 and y. 16), which in point of fact takes place when the
Gentile obeys the moral law of nature, ver. 14 f. -- εἰς περιτ. λογισϑήσεται]
will be reckoned as cireumeision (εἰς in the sense of the result, see ix. 8 ;
Acts xix. 27; Is. xl. 17; Wisd. ix. 6; Theile, ad Jac. p. 188). The
Suture is not that of the logical certainty (Mehring and older expositors), or
of the result (Hofmann), which latter sense would be involved in a form of
expression corresponding to the yéyove ; but the glance of the Apostle ex-
tends (see ver. 27) to the last judgment. To the uncircumcised person, who
observes what the law has ordained, ¢.e. the moral precepts of the law, shall
one day be awarded the same salvation that God has destined, subject to
the obligation of fulfilment of the law, for those who through circumcision
are members of His people. As to the thought comp. Matt. viii. 11, ili. 9 ;
1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 6. The reference to proselytes of the gate (Philippi)
is not only arbitrary, but also incorrect, because the text has in view the
pure contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision, without any hint
of an intermediate stage or anything analogous thereto. The proposition is
to be retained in its unlimited expression. The mediation, however, which
has to intervene for the circumcised as well as for the uncircumcised, in
order to the procuring of salvation through faith, is still left unnoticed here,
and is reserved for the subsequent teaching of the Epistle. See especially
ch. iv.

Ver. 27. is regarded by most modern expositors, including Rickert,
Reiche (undecidedly), Kéllner, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Philippi, Lachmann,
Ewald, and Mehring, as a continuation of the question, so that οὐχί is again
understood before κρινεῖ. But the sequence of thought is brought out

It is the emergent

1 ΠῚ 6 same idea is illustrated concretely
by R. Berechias in Schemoth Rabb. f. 138, 13:
“Ne haeretici et apostatae et impii ex Is-
raelitis dicant: Quandoquidem circumcisi
sumus, ininfernum non descendimus. Quid
agit Deus S.B.? Mittit angelum et prae-
putia eorum attrahit, ita ut ipsi in infernum
descendant.’’ See other similar passages in
Hisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. 11. p. 339 f.

2 See Winer, p. 188 [E. T. 145].

3 roy νόμον τελεῖν Means, as in James ii. 8,

to bring the law into execution. It is only dis-
tinguished from φυλάσσειν and τηρεῖν νόμον
by its representing the same thing on its
practical side, so far as the law is accom-
plished by the action which the law de-
mands. Comp. Plat. Legg. xi. p. 926 A, xii. p.
958 D; Xen. Cyr. viii. 1, 1; Soph. Aj. 528;
Lucian. @. Morte Peregr. 33. On the whole,
τελεῖν frequently answers to the idea pa-
trare, facere. (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 804.)

CHAP, 11., 28, 29. 103
much more forcibly, if we take ver. 27 as affirmative, as the reply to the
question contained in ver. 26, (as is done by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther,
Bengel, Wetstein, and others ; now also by Tholuck, de Wette, van Hengel,
Th. Schott, Hofmann). In this case the placing κρινεῖ first. conveys a
strong emphasis ; and καί, as often in classic authors’ is the simple and,
which annexes,the answer to the interrogative discourse as if in continua-
tion, and thus assumes its affirmation as self-evident.* And the natural un-
circumcision, if it fulfils the law, shall judge, i.e. exhibit in thy full desert of
punishment (namely, comparatione sui, as Grotius aptly remarks),* thee, who,
ete. Compare, on the idea, Matt. xii. 41 ; the thought of the actual direct
judgment on the last day, according to 1 Cor. vi. 2, is alien to the passage,
although the practical indirect judgment, which is meant, belongs to the
future judgment-day. —7 ἐκ φύσεως axpoB.| The uncireumeision by nature, ὁ. 6.
the (persons in question) uncircumcised in virtue of their Gentile birth.
This ἐκ φύσεως, which is neither, with Koppe and Olshausen, to be connected
with τὸν νόμ. τελ., nor, with Mehring, to be taken as equivalent to ἐν σαρκί,
is in itself superfluous, but serves to heighten the contrast διὰ yp. x. περιτ.
The idea, that this ἀκροβυστία is ἃ περιτομὴ ἐν πνεύματι, must (in opposition to
Philippi) have been indicated in the text, and it would have no place in the
connection of our passage ; see ver. 29, where it first comes in. —rév διὰ
γράμμ. K. περιτ. παραβ. νόμου] who with letter and cirewmeision art a trans-
gressor of the law. διά denotes the surrounding circumstances amidst which,
z.e. here according to the context : in spite of which the transgression takes
place.* Compare iv. 11, xiv. 20 ; Winer, p. 355 [E. T. 380].. Others take
διά as instrumental, and that either: διὰ νόμου... . προαχϑείς (Oecumenius ;
comp. Umbreit) or: ‘‘occasione legis,” (Beza, Estius, and others ; comp.
Benecke), or: ‘‘who transgressest the law, and art exhibited as such by the
letter,” etc. (K6lner). But the former explanations introduce a foreign
idea into the connection ; and against Kélner’s view it may be urged that
his declarative rendering weakens quite unnecessarily the force of the con-
trast of the two members of the verse. For the most natural and most
abrupt contrast to the wneirewmeised person who keeps the law is he, who
transgresses the law notwithstanding letter and circumcision, and is conse-
quently all the more culpable, because he offends against written divine
direction (ypayy.) and theocratic obligation (cepcr.).

Vy. 28, 29. Proof of ver. 27. For the true Judaism (which is not exposed’
to that κρινεῖ) resides not in that which is external, but in the hidden world of
the internal. — ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ] 1.6. ὃς ἐν τῷ φ. ἐστι : > for he is not a Jew, who is
80 openly, 7.e. not he who shows himself to be an Ιουδαῖος in external visible

1 Thiersch, § 354, 5 b.; Kiihner, ad Xen.
Mem. ii. 10, 2.

2 Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 880.

3 Not so, that God in judging will apply
the Gentile obedience of the law as a stand-
ard for estimating the Jewish transgression
of it (Th. Schott), which is gratuitously
introduced. The standard of judgment re-
mains the law of God (ver. 12f.); but the

example of the Gentile, who has fulfilled it,
exposes and practically condemns the Jew
who has transgressed it.

4 Th. Schott arbitrarily: who with the
possession of the law and circumcision does
not cease to be a transgressor and /o pass for
such.

δ᾽ See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 116.

104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

exhibition (in profession, circumcision, dress, ceremonial service, and the
like) is a genuine, aAndivéc, "Iovdaiog answering to the idea.’ The second
half of ver. 28, in which ἐν σαρκί forms an apposition to ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, more
precisely defining it, is to be taken as quite parallel. — Ver. 29 is usually
rendered : But he who is a Jew in secret (scil. is a true Jew), and circumeision
of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter (scil. is true cirewmcision.) But
against this view it may be urged that ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ is so completely par-
allel to the 6 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ in ver. 28, that a different mode of connection
cannot but seem forced. Hence the following construction and exposition
result more naturally (comp. Luther, Erasmus, and others ; also Fritzsche) :
But he is a Jew (in the true sense) who is so in secret (in the invisible inner
life), and (instead of now saying, in parallel with ver. 98 : ἡ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ
περιτομή, Paul defines both the ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ and the true spiritual mean-
ing of περιτομῇ More precisely, and says) cirewmeision of the heart resides (the
ἐστί to be supplied) in the spirit, not in the letter.* Stripped of figure, περι-
τομὴ καρδίας is: the separation of all that is immoral from the inner life ;
for circumcision was accounted even from the earliest times as σύμβολον
ἡδονῶν ἐκτομῆς (Philo). The uncircumcised heart is ἀμετανόητος, ver. 5. —
ἐν πνεύματι) is the power, im which the circumcision of the heart finds its
causal ground, namely, in the Spirit, 1.6. in the Holy Spirit, through whose
- power it takes place, not in the letter, which effects the outward circum-
cision by its commandment. In true Judaism also the Holy Ghost is the
divine active principle (comp. vii. 14). So much the less reason is there
for making πνεύμα in our passage mean the true Jewish public spirit proceed-
ing from God (de Wette, comp. Tholuck), or the spirit of the law, in con-
trast to its outward observance (van Hengel, who wrongly urges the ab-
sence of the article); or the new life-principle in man, wrought in him by the
Spirit of God (Riickert, comp. Luther’s gloss) ; on the contrary, the πνεῦμα
is to be left as the objective, concrete divine πνεῦμα, as the Holy Spirit
in the definite sense, and as distinguished from the spiritual conditions and
tendencies which He produces. The correct and clear view is held by Gro-
tius, Fritzsche, and Philippi ; compare Hofmann. Others, as Theodore
of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius (Chrysostom and Theophylact express them-
selves very indefinitely), Erasmus, Beza, Toletus, Heumann, Morus, Rosen-
miiller, Reiche, Mehring, take πνεῦμα as meaning the spirit ef man. But
that the circumcision of the heart takes place in the spirit of man, is self-
evident ; and the similar contrast between πνεῦμα and γράμμα, vii. 6 and 2
Cor. iii. 6, clearly excludes the reference to the human spirit. — oi] of which,
is neuter, and refers to the entire description of the true Jewish nature in

1 See Matthiae, p. 1533, Buttman, newt. Gr.
p. 335 f. [E. T. 392].
_ 2 Ewald, who likewise follows our con-
struction in the first clause of the verse,
takes in the second half of it καρδίας as pred-
icate : and circumcision is that of the heart.
But in that case, since περιτομή in itself
would be the ¢rwve circumcision, we should
expect the article before it.

3 See Lev. xxvi. 41; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6;
Jer. iv. 14, ix. 26 ; Ez. xliv.7; compare Phil.
111. 3; Col. ii. 11; Acts vii.51; Philo, de Sac-
rif. Ὁ. 58: περιτέμνεσθε τὰς σκληροκαρδίας, τόδε
ἐστι τὰς περιττὰς φύσεις τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἃς ai
ἄμετροι τῶν παθῶν ἔσπειράν τε καὶ συνηύξησαν
ὁρμαὶ καὶ ὃ κακὸς ψυχῆς γεωργὸς ἐφύτευσεν,
ἀφροσύνη, μετὰ σπουδῆς ἀποκείρεσθε. See also
Schoettgen, Hor. p. 815.

NOTES. 105

ver. 29. The epexegetical relative definition bears to it an argumentative
relation : id quod laudem suam habet etc. οὗ ye would be still more em-
phatic. To interpret it as masculine with reference to ’Iovdaioc (Augustine,
Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and many others ; including Reiche, Riickert,
KG6llner, de Wette, Olshausen, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, and
Hofmann ; compare van Hengel) is, especially seeing that Paul has not
written ὧν, as in iii. 8 (Schoem. ad Js. p. 243), a very unnecessary violence,
which Grotius, who is followed by Th. Schott, makes still worse by twist-
ing the construction as if the ἐστίν of ver. 28 stood immediately before οὗ (dz
is not the evident Jew, etc., whose praise, etc). As is often the case in classic
authors, the neuter of the relative belongs to the entire sentence.'—6é ἔπαινος]
2.€. the due praise (not recompense). See on 1 Cor. iv. 5. Compare, on the
matter itself, John v. 44, xii. 48. Oecumenius rightly says : τῆς γὰρ κρυπτῆς
καὶ ἐν καρδία περιτομῆς οὐκ ἔσται ἐπαινέτης ἄνϑρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐτάζων καρδίας Kat
νεφροὺς Θεὸς. Compare the δόξα Θεοῦ ill. 23. This praise is the holy satis-
faction of God [His being well-pleased], as He has so often declared it to the
righteous in the Scriptures.—Observe how perfectly analogous ver. 28 f. in
its tenor of thought is to the idea of the invisible church, Compare on ver.
25.

Notes py ΑΜΈΒΙΟΑΝ Eprror.

XV. Ver. 1—ch. 111. 20.

It may be said, with Meyer, that Paul ‘‘adduces here the second half of the
proof as to the wniversal necessity of justification by faith,’’ or, rather, as to the
fact that there is no justification by works, which fact carries with it this uni-
versal necessity. This second half of the proof is that with which the Apostle
chiefly concerns himself, not only because the unrighteousness of the Gentiles
was more plainly manifest, but also because the Jewish party would readily ad-
mit that this unrighteousness excluded the Gentiles from justification—while, on
the other hand, this party would not easily acknowledge the same thing, and
make the same admission, respecting themselves. It is for this reason that
he approaches the declaration of the fact as related to the Jews more gradually,
and with more careful preparation of the way, than he had done in the other
ease. He begins his argument in the most general form, and only at the 17th
verse does he make the direct application to the Jews of what has previously
been said.

XVI. Ver. 1 ff. διὸ ἀναπολόγητος el, K.7.A.

The argument in the first verses may be considered in two aspects. (1)
With reference to the main thoughts, ver. 2 contains the major premise; the
judgment of God is against those who habitually commit such sins as are
charged upon the Gentiles in the first chapter; ver. 1b.c. contains the minor
premise : the person who condemns others (in the case supposed) habitually
commits these sins; ver. la., we must conclude, therefore, that this person,
whoever he may be, will be condemned at the Divine judgment. The ar-
gument, as thus indicated, is complete and decisive ; and the conclusion must
be of universal application, unless some way of escape from the general rule

1 See especially Richter, de anac. gr. linguae, § 28; Matthiae, II. p. 987 f.

106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

of the divine government can be discovered for the particular man in question.
But is there any such way? If so, it must be either on the man’s side, because
of some special privilege appertaining to himself as distinguished from others,
or on God’s side, because of His goodness, which is so great that it will forbear
to inflict the penalty. The question as to these two suppositions is raised in
the following verses: the former in ver. 3, and the latter in ver. 4. To the
former a negative answer is implied in the mode of presenting the question.
To the latter is added a detailed proof of the negative, which extends from
ver, 5 to ver. 16. The omission of a similar full statement as connected with
ver. 3 is to be explained from the desire on the part of the author to defer it
until after he should have applied his general reasoning to the Jews ; and, ac-
cordingly, we find it set forth in vv. 25-29. (2) With reference to the grammat-
ical connection and the sequence of the sentences. διό, whetheritisto be regarded
as referring to i. 32 (with de Wette, Alford, and others), or to the main idea of
i. 18-32 (with Meyer), brings the new affirmation respecting πῶς ὁ κρίνων into
close connection with the statements of the preceding chapter. Hence it is,
that the order of thought is changed throughout ; the minor premise, as given
above, being introduced as a proof of this affirmation, and the major premise
placed in an independent sentence. According tothe grammatical connection,
the thought proceeds as follows: On the foundation of what is said in the
first chapter, the man who condemns another must be declared to be without
excuse, for in condemning the other he condemns himself, since he does the
same things ; and we know that the judgment of God is against all who do
these things,

XVII. Ver. 4. 7---καταφρονεῖς.

This verse—as in some other cases in Paul’s writings, eg. Gal. ii. 17—
seems to unite two sentences (one interrogative and the other declarative), in
one; here, the question and its answer. The answer is found in the word
καταφρονεῖς, and is further developed in ver. 5. The verb of the question is
suggested by the context. Dost thou rely upon, or trust to, the riches of God’s
goodness to set thee aside from the rules of His general administration? To
do so, while continuing in the sins described, is a treating his goodness with
contempt (not recognizing even its object and purpose, which is to lead to re-
pentance, and not to further wrong-doing), and a laying up for the final day a
greater measure of divine wrath.

XVHUI. Ver. 6. ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.

The question as to the consistency of this statement with the doctrine of
salvation by faith hasbeen unnecessarily raised by some writers. The Apostle
is here speaking only of the legal system, and discussing the matter of jus-
tification by works. On the legal system men are rewarded according to
their works, When they sin, therefore, there is no hope of justification.
He does not return to the matter of faith until iii. 21. This verse and its con-
text are sometimes used as an argument against the view which holds that the
heathen may have a probation hereafter, on the ground that they do not have
a fair opportunity of obtaining salvation in this life. The argument rests,
however, upon a misapprehension as to what the view in question necessarily
involves. By having a fair opportunity, in the sense in which this term is

NOTES. 107

employed, is not meant such an opportunity on the legal system. Both parties
alike may admit Paul’s teaching to be, that all men—the heathen nations as
well as others—have light enough to make their condemnation, on that system,
just. But anew system, through the mercy of God, has been introduced—one
of faith and forgiveness ; and it is claimed by advocates of the opinion alluded
to, that the question arises, in view of this fact, whether if, in His abound- ᾿
ing goodness, God has thus opened to sinners, who had put themselves
beyond all hope from law, a new way of entrance into His kingdom, it is not,
by reason of that very goodness, probable that He will give all men alike the
knowledge of this wonderful way—that He will grant such knowledge and the
opportunity to use it for the end in view—hereafter, in case, for wise reasons
of His own, He does not grant it here, Will He not give the unenlightened and
the enlightened among mankind an equal possibility under the light of the faith-
‘system? To this question this section of the Epistle, having reference only to
works, gives no answer. Arguments against this view, when thus under-
stood, may be drawn from other N. T. passages, or from the general indications
of N. T. teaching, but not from these verses,

XIX. Ver. 12. ἀνόμως--ἐν νόμῳ.

That ἀνόμως and ἐν νόμῳ refer to the Mosaic law must be regarded as al-
together probable, (a) Because the immediately preceding context presents
before us the division of mankind into Jews and Gentiles. The close con-
nection of this verse with vy. 9, 10, through the γάρ which opens it and that
which opens ver. 11, shows that the same division is intended here. The
point of difference between the two, however, was the possession or non-pos-
session of the Mosaic law. (Ὁ) Because ri τοῦ νόμου (ver. 14) clearly refers to
the requirements of the law of Moses. This being so, the contrast of the verse
naturally suggests the same law as intended by μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα. (c) Because
the thing which the Jews rested upon (ver. 17), and gloried in (ver. 23), was
not law, but the law of Moses, (d) Because, in the contrast presented in
vv, 25, 27, the keeping τόν νόμον (cf. τοῦ νόμου, ver. 26) is placed in opposition
to transgression νόμου. For the force of the contrast, νόμου must be regarded
as the same with τοῦ νόμον. (6) Because it is wholly unlikely that the writer
meant a different thing by παραβάσεως τὸυ νόμου in ver, 23 and παραβάτης [παρα-
βάσεως] νόμον, only two verses afterward. The former expression, however,
evidently refers to the Mosaic law. (f) Because circumcision, as a distin-
guishing mark of the Jews, was connected with the law of Moses. When
therefore practising what νόμος requires is declared to be essential to the en-
joyment of any advantage from this distinction, νόμος must mean this partic-
ular law. (4) Because all the kindred words throughout the entire passage,
περιτομή, γράμμα, ᾿Ιουδαῖος, point to this law as in the mind of the author. (ἢ)
Because the doctrine of justification by works which Paul was here proving
to be untrue was, as held by the Jewish party, connected with the law of Moses.
Throughout these verses (12-29), accordingly, wherever νόμος occurs (with the
possible exception of the last instance in ver. 14), it must be understood as
the same with ὁ νόμος ;—this word being used as a kind of proper name (cf.
Winer, p. 123).

The true position with regard to this word seems to be this : that, whether
with or without the article, it means the Mosaic law, in all cases in Paul’s

108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Epistles, except a very insignificant number in which either the necessities of
the sentence itself, or the unquestionable indications of the context, prove,
beyond a doubt, that it does not have this meaning.

Weiss ed. Mey., Bp. Lightfoot, and some other recent writers oppose the
view above stated, and hold that νόμος without the article denotes any positive
law, or positive law in the abstract. Their presentation of the matter appears
unsatisfactory and their arguments inconclusive ; and it seems scarcely too
much to say, with Meyer, that their view ‘‘ opens the way for artificial and
sometimes intolerable explanations.’’ The question can be properly settled by
a careful examination of all the cases where the word occurs, Such an ex-
amination, it is believed, will confirm, at every step, the position taken in
this note.

XX. Ver. 15. συμμαρτυρούσης--- ἀπολογουμένων.

Weiss ed. Mey.—though denying the position of Meyer, that the context
shows the reference to be to the approving conscience—objects to the view
against which Meyer is arguing, that such a wavering of judgment (as the
application of μετ. ἀλλ, doy. x.T.A. to the process of conscience in the individu-
al man implies), would tend rather to render doubtful, than to prove the ex-
istence of an objective rule or standard in the heart. The Apostle, however,
does not speak of such a wavering of judgment, as Weiss supposes, but to the
approving or condemning judgment which the particular case may call for.
Weiss also holds that κατηγούντων x.T.A. is not to be joined with λογισμῶν as
forming a second gen. abs. clause, but as an attributive phrase—there
being but one gen. abs. clause, in which συμμαρτυρούσης is united both
with ovveid. and with Aoy. Holsten takes the same view, but Godet, with
reason, objects to this construction as forced. Godet, Alford, Shedd, Schaff
(Pop. Comm.), Philippi, agree with de Wette and others in holding that ἀλλη-
λῶν refers to λογισμῶν. ‘* There takes place, as it were, a dialogue between the
thoughts, one accusing, the other acquitting’’ (Phil.). The argument for this
view is, that the other parts of the description seem to be limited to the indi-
vidual soul in itself, and not to refer to any relations to others. The emphatic
position of μεταξὺ ἀλλ, and the suggestion of contrast with αὐτῶν are the strong
points favoring Meyer’s explanation.

XXI. Ver. 23. ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι.

The change in the form of expression in this clause, as compared with those
which precede, does not, indeed, prove Meyer’s view of the verse, as a categor-
ical answer, to be correct, but it suggests that it may be; and the sentence
gains in emphasis and force, if explained in this way.

XXII. Ver. 25. περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ.

ὠφελεῖ carries back the thought to the emphatic σύ of ver. 3, and in sub-
stance, though not in form, confirms the negative answer to the question of that
verse. While admitting that there is a certain advantage connected with cir-
cumcision [to be more fully explained at a later point], provided the cir-
cumcised person fulfils the requirements of the law, the Apostle denies to
the Jew, so long as the law is not fulfilled, any such favored position as he

NOTES. 109

was prone to claim with respect to the judgment and the application of the rules
of the Divine administration. The ydp, which opens this verse, connects it with
the statement implied in ver. 23—namely, that condemnation will rest upon
those who thus dishonour God, no matter how much they may glory in the law,
for circumcision will avail nothing while they commit such sins.

110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 2. μὲν γάρ] Lachm. following B D* E G, min. vss., Chrys. Aug. reads
μέν. The yap was easily lost in consequence of its seeming unnecessary, and
of the recollection of i. 8 ; but is supported by 1 Cor. xi. 18.—Ver. 9. προεχόμεθα]
D* G 31, Syr. Erp. Chrys. ms. Theodoret have προκατέχομεν (or κατέχ.) περισσὸν,
and, with several other authorities, omit οὐ πάντως. This προκατ. περισσ. is an
erroneous gloss ; and the omission of οὐ πάντως is explained by its being no
longer suitable after the adoption of τί οὖν προκατέχομεν περισσόν ; see Reiche,
Comm. crit, — Ver. 11. In important codices the article is wanting before
συνίων and ἐκζητῶν. But see LXX. Ps. xiv. 2.—Ver. 22. καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας] is
wanting in A BC P 8%, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Erp. Clem. Or. Cyr. Aug. Deleted
by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But when we consider that a gloss on εἰς πάντας was
quite unnecessary, and on the other hand that καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας was equally un-
necessary to complete the sense, we may assume that the twice repeated πάντας
may have even at a very early date occasioned the omission of καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας.
—Ver. 25. τῆς xiot.] τῆς 18 wanting in C* D* F G δὲ, min., and several Fathers
(A and Chrys. omit the whole διὰ τ. zior.). Suspected by Griesb., and deleted
by Lachm. and Tisch. Still the omission of the article might easily occur if
the copyist, as was natural, glanced back at διὰ πίστ., ver. 22.—Ver. 26. πρὸς
ἔνδειξ.1 Following A B Ο D* P &, min., we should read with Lachm. and
Tisch. πρὸς τὴν évderE. The article was passed over in accordance with ver. 25.
- Ἰησοῦ is wanting in F G 52 It.; and is expanded in other authorities (Χριστοῦ
᾽Ιησοῦ, or τοῦ κυρίου ju. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Notwithstanding the preponderating
testimony in its favour, it is properly deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7. Sup-
plied from looking back to ver. 22.—Ver. 28. yap] Elz. and Tisch. 7. read οὖν,
against very preponderating testimony, by which also the arrangement δικ.
πίστ. ἄνθρωπον (Elz.: π. 6. a.) is confirmed. Since according to the different
modes of apprehending the connection, the emendation might be οὖν as well
as γάρ, external attestation only can here be regarded as decisive.—Ver. 29.
The reading μόνων (so Tisch. 7. instead of μόνον) is insufficiently attested by B,
min. and Fathers ; and arose easily out of the context.—odyi καί] Elz.: οὐχὶ δὲ
καί, against decisive testimony. The δὲ was easily introduced into the text by
the contrast, whether the two questions might be taken separately, or togeth-
er as one —éreizep] A BC D** 8, min., Clem. Or. Cyr. Didym. Damasc. : εἴπερ.
Recommended by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily
may the ἐπείπερ only occurring here in the N. T., and therefore unfamiliar to
the copyists, have been exchanged for the familiar eizep!

Vy. 1,’2. As an inference (οὖν) from 11. 28, 29, the objection might now
be made from the Jewish standpoint against the Apostle, that he quite

1 On chap. iii. see Matthias, emeget. gramme), Hanau 1851; and the same author’s
Abhandlung tiber vv. 1-20 (a school -pro- work: das dritte Kap. ἃ. Br.an ἃ. Rém.,

CHAPEL ΠΩ: 111
does away with the advantage of Judaism and the benefit of circumcision.
This objection he therefore raises in his own person, in order to remove it
himself immediately, ver. 2 ff. — τὸ περισσὸν x.t.A.] [See Note XXIII. p. 146.]
the superiority * of the Jew, ὁ.6. what he has as an advantage over the Gen-
tile, the Jewish surplus. The following ἢ (or, to express it in other words)
τίς ἡ ὠφέλ. τ. περιτ. presents substantially the same question in a more spe-

, cific form, — x02] Much, namely, is the περισσόν of the Jew or the benefit

of circumcision.* The neuter comprehends the answer to both ; and it
must not therefore be said that it applies only to the first question, leaving
the second without further notice. It is moreover clear from what pre-
cedes and follows, that Paul meant the περισσόν not in a moral, but in a ~
theocratic sense ; comp. ix. 4 f.— «ara πάντα τρόπον] in every way (Xen.
Anab. vi. 6, 30), in whatever light the matter may be considered.’ It is an
undue anticipation to take the expression as hyperbolical (Reiche), since we
do not know how the detailed illustration, which is only begun, would be
further pursued. — πρῶτον] first of all, yirstly, it is a prerogative of the Jew,
or advantage of circumcision, that, etc. The Apostle consequently begins
to illustrate the πολύ according to its individual elements, but, just after
mentioning the first point, is led away by a thought connected with it, so
that all further enumeration (possibly by εἶτα, Xen, Mem. iii. 6, 9) is dropped
[See Note XXIV. p. 146.] and not, as Grotius strangely thinks, postponed to
ix.4. Compare oni. 8 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18. As the μέν was evidently meant to be
followed by a corresponding δέ, it was a mere artificial explaining away of
the interruption of -the discourse, to render πρῶτον praecipue (Beza, Calvin,
Toletus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Koppe, Gléckler, and others ; compare
also Hofmann : ‘‘ before all things”), or to say with Th. Schott that it indi-
cates the basis from which the πολύ follows. — ὅτι ἐπιστ. τ. λόγια τ. Θεοῦ] that
they (the Jews) were entrusted with the utterances of God, namely, in the holy
Scriptures given to them, devoutly to preserve these λόγια as a Divine treas-
ure, and to maintain them for all ages of God’s people as their and their
children’s (comp. Acts ii. 39) possession. On the Greek form of expression
πιστεύομαί τι (1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. 11. 7), see Winer, p. 244 [E. T. 260]. —ra
λόγια τ. Θεοῦ] eloguia Dei. [See Note XXV.p. 146.] That by this general ex-
pression (γρησμοὺς αὐτοῖς ἄνωϑεν κατηνεχϑέντας, Chrysostom), which always

ein exeg. Versuch, Cassel 1857; James Mori-
son, A critical exposition of the Third Chap-
ter of St. Paul’s Epistie to the Romans, Lond.
1866.

1 Matt. v. 47, xi. 9; Plat. Ap. S. p. 20 C.
Lucian. Prom. 1; Plut. Demosth. 3.

2 This answer is ‘he Apostle’s, not the re-
ply of a Jew asserting his περισσόν, whom
Paul then interrupts in ver. 4 with μὴ γένοιτο
(Baur in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 69)—a
breaking up of the text into dialogue,
which is neither necessary nor in any way
indicated, and which is not supported by
any analogy of other passages. According
to Mehring, Paul has written ver. 2, and in

fact onward to ver. 8, as the sentiments of
a Jew to be summarily dealt with, who in
πρῶτον had it in view to enumerate yet
further advantages, but whose mouth was
closed by ver. 9. The unforced exposition
of the successive verses does not permit
this view ; and ii. 25-29 is not at variance
with ver. 2, but, on the contrary, leaves
sufficiently open to the Apostle the recog-
nition of Jewish privileges, which he begins
to specify ; comp. ii. 25and ix. 4 f.

3 See examples in Wetstein. The oppo-
site: κατ᾽ οὐδένα τρόπον, 2 Macc. xi. 31;
Polyb. iv. 84, 8, viii. 27, 2.

112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

receives its more precise definition from the context (Acts vii. 38 ; Heb. v.
12; 1 Pet. iv. 11),’ Paul means here κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the Messianic prophetic ut-
terances, is shown by ver. 3, where the ἀπιστία of the Jews leaves no room
for mistake as to the contents of the λόγια. Compare ai érayyedia, ix. 4.
These λόγια τ. Θεοῦ are contained not merely in the prophets proper (Acts iii.
24), but even in the Pentateuch (covenant with Abraham, the promise of
Moses) ; yet the law is not meant, nor even jointly included (Matthias),
against which ver. 3 testifies. Just as little is there meant: all making
known of God in the history of salvation (Hofmann), which is too general,
and is extended by Hofmann even to the New Testament revelations.

Ver. 3. Not an objection to the preceding [See Note XXVI. p. 147.], but @
guarantee of the ἐπιστεύϑ. τὰ λόγια τ. Θεοῦ just mentioned, as something that
has not been cancelled and revoked through the partial unbelief of the peo-
ple. ‘‘ For how? what is the case?* If some refused the faith, will their un-

belief make void the faithfulness of God ?” will it produce the effect that God
shall now regard the promises once committed to the Jews as void, and
Himself as no longer bound to His word therein pledged? The ἠπίστησαν
and the ἀπιστία are by the context necessarily referred to the λόγια τ. Θεοῦ 5
the unbelief of a part of the Jews in the promises manifested itself, namely,
by their rejecting the Messiah who had appeared according to the promise.
So in substance also Matthias, who nevertheless apprehends the notion of
ἀπιστ. as unfaithfulness towards what was entrusted to them, which the révec¢
did not use for the purpose of letting themselves be led thereby to Christ.
But ἀπιστεῖν and ἀπιστία (even in 2 Tim. ii. 13) mean specifically throughout
the N. T. (see in this Epistle iv. 20, xi. 20, 23 ; compare Morison, p. 23) un-
belief not unfaithfulness, although Hofmann also ultimately comes to adopt
this notion. This remark also applies against the supposition of Kéllner, de
Wette, Mehring, and older writers, that Paul meant the wnfaithfulness (the
disobedience) of the Jews in the times before Christ.* Such a view is opposed to
the context ; and must not the idea, that the earlier breaches of covenant on
the part of the Jews might possibly annul the λόγια, have been wholly
strange to Paul and his Jewish readers, since they knew from experience
that, even when the Jews had heaped unfaithfulness upon unfaithfulness,
God always committed to them anew, through His prophets, the promises
of the Messiah? In the mind of the Apostle the idea of the πάρεσις τῶν

1 Compare the passages from the Septua-
gint in Schleusner, 7hes. III. p. 464, from
Philo in Loesner, p. 248; and see especially
Bleek on Hed. 11. 2, p. 114 f.

2 Regarding the classic use of λόγια, proph-
ecies, see Kriiger on Thuc. ii. 8, 2, and gen-
rally Locella, αα Xen. Hph. Ὁ. 152f. The
word is not a diminutive form (Philippi,
who finds in it the usual brevity of oracular
utterances), but the neuter form of λόγιος.
The diminutive conception, little utterances,
is expressed not by λόγιον, but by λογίδιον
Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E. This applies also in
opposition to Morison.

3 τί yap ; compare Phil. i. 18. Elz., Ben-
gel, and Lachm. place the sign of interroga-
tion after τινές. Van Hengel follows them,
also Th. Schott and Hofmann. It is impos-
sible to decide the question. Still even in
classic authors, the τί yap; standing alone
is frequent, “‘ubi quis cum alacritate qua-
dam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,”
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 2; Jacobs. ad Del.
epigr. vi. 60; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 73 1.

4 Especially would τίνες be quite unsuita-
ble, because it would be absolutely untrue.
All were disobedient and unfaithful. See
ver. 9 ff.

CHAP. III., 4. 118
προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων was fixed (ver. 25; Acts xvii. 30). Therefore we
cannot understand (with Philippi) unbelief in the promises shown in the
period before Christ to be here referred to. But according to the doctrine
of faith in the promised One who had come, as the condition of the Mes-
sianic salvation, the doubt might very easily arise: May not the partial
unbelief of the Jews since the appearance of Christ, to whom the λόγεα re-
ferred, possibly cancel the divine utterances of promise committed to the
nation? Notwithstanding the simple and definite conception of ἀπιστεῖν
throughout the N. T., Hofmann here multiplies the ideas embraced so as to
include as well disobedience to the law as unbelief towards the Gospel and
unbelief towards the prophetic word of promise—a grouping together of
very different significations, which is the consequence of the erroneous and
far too wide sense assigned to the λόγια τ. Θεοῦ. -- τὴν πίστιν τ. Θεοῦ] The gen-
itive is necessarily determined to be the genitive of the subject, partly by
ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν, partly by ver. 4, and partly by Θεοῦ δικαιοσ. in ver. 5. There-
fore : the jides Dei in keeping the Ady:a, keeping His word, in virtue of which
He does not abandon His promises to His people.t| Compare 2 Tim. ii. 13,
and the frequent πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 18; 2 Cor. i. 18 al.—Observe
further that Paul designates the unbelievers only by τινές, some, which is not
contemptuous or tronical (Tholuck, Philippi ; compare Bengel), nor intended
as a milder expression (Grotius), but is rather employed to place in a stronger
light the negation of the effect under discussion ; and, considering the relative
import of τινές, it is not at variance with the truth, for although there were
many (τινές καὶ πολλοί ye, Plat. Phaed. p. 58 D), still they were not all.
Compare xi. 17, and on 1 Cor. x. 7; Kriiger, § 51, 16, 14.

Ver. 4. [See Note XXVII. p. 147.] Let it not be (far be it)! but God is
to be truthful, 1.6. His truthfulness is to be the actual result produced
(namely, in the carrying out of His Messianic plan of salvation), and every
man a liar. To this it shall come ; the development of the holy divine
economy to this final state of the relation between God and men, is what
Paul knows and wishes. — μὴ γένοιτο] The familiar formula of negation by,
which the thing asked is repelled with abhorrence, corresponding to the
τ (Gen. xliv. 17; Josh. xxii. 29; 1 Sam. xx. 2), is used by Paul par-
ticularly often in our Epistle, elsewhere in Gal. ii. 17, iii. 21, 1 Cor. vi. 15,
always in a dialectic discussion, In the other writings of the N. T. it oc-
curs only at Luke xx. 16, but is current in later Greek authors.? — γενέσϑω]
not equivalent to φανερούσϑω, ἀποδεικνύσϑω (Theophylact), but the historical
result which shall come to pass, the actual Theodicée that shall take place.
This indeed in reality amounts to a φανεροῦσϑαι, but it is expressed by yw-

1 Τὸ is the fides, qua Deus promissis stat, be moved by that ἀπιστία τινων to become

notin reality different from the idea of the
ἀληϑής in ver. 4. The word πίστις, however,
is selected as the correlative of ἀπιστία. De-
spite the Jewish ἀπιστία it continues the
case, not that God has been πίστος (in that,
namely, He has spoken among the people,
Hofmann thinks), but that He is πίστος, in
that, namely, He does not allow Himself to

likewise ἄπιστος, which He would be if He
left His own λόγια committed to the Jews
unfulfilled. He will not allow this case of
the annulling of His πίστις to occur. Com-
pare 2 Tim. ii. 13.

3 Raphel, Arrian. in loc.; Sturz, de dial:
Al. p. 204,

114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ἔσϑω, according to its objective reality, which demonstrates itself. In that
which God (and man) does, He becomes actually what according to His
nature He is. — πᾶς δὲ av p. ψεύστ.] By no means unessential (Riickert), or
merely a concomitant circumstance (Th. Schott), is designed, and that all
the more forcibly without a preceding μέν, to appropriate the ἀλήϑεια
exclusively to God, in contrast to ἠπίστ. τινες, ver. ὃ, outbidding this τινές by
πᾶς. Every man is a liar, if he does not perform the service to which he
has become bound, as is brought to light in the case of the τινές by their
ἀπιστία, Since as members of the people of God they had bound themselves
to faith in the divine promises. That Paul had Ps. exvi. 11 in view
(Calvin, Wolf, and many others) is the more doubtful, seeing that he im-
mediately quotes another passage. —oérac¢ ἂν dix. κ.τ.2.} Ps. li. 6 exactly
after the LXX. Independently of the more immediate connection and
sense of the original text, Paul seizes on the type of the relation discussed
by him, which is involved in the words of the Psalm, in the form in which
they are reproduced by the LXX.’ and that in the sense : that thow mayest
be justified, i.e. acknowledged as faultless and upright, in thy words, and pre-
vail (in substance the same as the previous δικαιωθῇς) when thou disputest,
namely, with men against whom thou defendest and followest out thy right.
From this second clause results that πᾶς dé ἄνϑρ. ψεύστης. The exact appro-
priateness of this view in the connection is decisive against the explanation
commonly adopted formerly after the Vulgate and Luther, and again pre-
ferred by Mehring, which takes κρίνεσϑαι as passive (when thou art subjected
to judgment).* -- ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου] 1.6. in that which thou hast spoken. And
that is the category to which those λόγια belong, as to which the Apostle has
just repelled the idea that God will not keep them on account of the ἀπιστία
of the τινές and will thereby prove untrue. The sense ‘‘ in sententia ferenda,”
when thou passest a sentence (Philippi), cannot be taken out of ἐν r.Ady. σου,
since God is not represented as judge, but as litigant, over whom the justi-
fying judicial decision is pronounced. The view of Hofmann is also er-
roneous : that it denotes the accusations, which God may bring against men.
For the text represents God indeed as the party gaining the verdict and
prevailing, but not as the accuser preferring charges ; and the λόγοι, in re-
spect of which He is declared justified, point back so directly to the λόγια
in ver. 2, that this very correlation has occasioned the selection of the par-
ticular passage from Ps. li. — νικᾶν, like vincere, used of prevailing in a
process ; compare Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 17; Dem. 1436, 18 al. The opposite :
ἡττᾶσϑαι: --- On ὅπως (here in order that in the event of decision) see Hartung,
Partikell. 11. p. 286, 289 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 685.

1 The inaccuracies in the translation of
the LXX. must be candidly acknowledged ;
‘still they do not yield any essential differ-
ence of sense from the idea of the original
‘text. These inaccuracies consist in NDIA
(insons sis) being rendered in the LXX. by
νικήσης, and JWDWI (cum judicas) being
translated ἐν τῷ κρίνεσϑαί oe,

2 On the use of the middle, to dispute with,
compare LXX. Job ix. 3, xiii. 19, and other
passages in Schleusner, Thes. 11]. p. 885 f.
This use has been properly maintained by
Beza, Bengel, and others; also Matthias,
Tholuck, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Hof-
mann, and Morison. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 1;
Matt. v. 40.

OHAP. TIT. ὃς, 0; 115

Vv. 5, 6. In vv. 3 and 4 it was declared that the unbelief of a part of
the Jews would not make void the truthfulness of God, but that, on the
contrary, the latter should be triumphantly justified. But how easily might
this be misconstrued by a Jew of the common type as a pretext for his im-

morality : ‘‘the unrighteousness of man in fact brings out more clearly the

righteousness of God, and therefore may not be righteously punished by
God !” To preclude this misconception and false inference, which ‘so ab-
ruptly run counter to his doctrine of universal human guilt, and to leave no
pretext remaining (observe beforehand the τί οὖν ; προεχόμεϑα in ver. 9),
Paul, having in view such thoughts of an antagonist, proposes to himself and
his readers the question : ‘‘ But if our unrighteousness show forth the right-
ecousness of God, what shall we say (infer)? Is God then unrighteous, who
inflicteth wrath?” And he disposes of it in the first instance by the categor-
ical answer (ver. 6) : No, otherwise God could not be judge of the world. 'The
assumption, that this question is occasioned really and seriously by what goes
before, and called forth from the Apostle himself (Hofmann), is rendered
untenable by the very addition κατὰ ἄνϑρωπον λέγω. ---ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν] Quite
general : our unrighteousness, abnormal moral condition. To this general
category belongs also the ἀπιστία, ver. 3. * Paul has regarded the possible
Jewish misconception, the notion of which occasions his question, as a gen-
eral, but for that reason all the more dangerous inference from vv. 3 and 4,
in which the words ἀδικία and δικαιοσύνη are suggested by the passage from
the Psalms in ver. 4. — ἡμῶν] is said certainly in the character of the ἄδικοι
in general, and stands in relation to the πᾶς δὲ ἄνϑρωπος ψεύστης in ver. 4.
But as the whole context is directed against the Jews, and the application
to these is intended in the general expressions, and indeed expressly made
in ver. 19, Paul speaks here also in such a way that the Jewish conscious-
ness, from which, as himself a Jew, he speaks, lies at the bottom of the
general form of his representation. — The protasis ei. . . . συνίστησι is a con-
cessum, which is in itself correct (ver. 4) ; but the inference, which the Jew-
ish self-justification might draw from it, is rejected with horror. Observe
in this protasis the emphatic juxtaposition ἡμῶν Θεοῦ ; and in the apodosis
the accent which lies on ἄδικος and τὴν ὀργήν. --- Θεοῦ δικαιοσ. συνίστησι) proves
God’s righteousness (comp. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4, vii. 11 ; Gal. 11. 18 ; Susann.
61; frequently in Polyb., Philo, etc.) ; makes it apparent beyond doubt, that
God is without fault, and such as He must be. The contrast to ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν
requires δικαίοσ. to be taken thus generally, and forbids its being explained
of a particular attribute (truth: Beza, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, and others ;
goodness: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Rosenmiiller), as well as its be-
ing taken in the sense of i. 17 (van Hengel). —The τί ἐροῦμεν (3 Esr. viii.
82) is used by Paul only in the Epistle to the Romans (iv. 1, vi. 1, vii. 7, viii.
31, ix. 14, 30).1— μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφ. τ. ὀργήν] [See Note XXVIII. p. 147. }.

This question? is so put that (as in ver. 3) a negative answer is expected,

since Paul has floating before his mind an impious objection conceived of

1 Compare, however, generally on such Aesch. Pers. 1013, Dissen, σα Dem. de cor. p.
questions arousing interest and enlivening 346 f.
the representation, Blomfield, Gloss. in 2 After μή, ἐροῦμεν is not again to be un-

116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

κατὰ ἄνϑρωπον. Hence : God is not unrighteous then, who dealeth wrath?
This in opposition to Riickert and Philippi, who make the questioner ex-
pect an affirmative answer, which can never be the case. In those passages
in Greek authors, where an affirmative reply notwithstanding follows, it in-
variably does so contrary to the expectation of the questioner ; see Kiihner,
ΤΙ. 2, p. 1024. ἄδικος, prefixed with emphasis, is, on account of its relation
to ὁ ἐπιφ. τ. ὀργήν, to be understood in the strict judicial signification wn-
righteous, which is confirmed by vv. 6 and 7.2 The article with the parti-
ciple indicates the relation as well-known ; and τὴν ὀργήν (Sin.* adds αὐτοῦ)
denotes the wrath definitely conceived of as judicial, inflicted at the judg-
ment.*— Kata ἄνϑρωπον λέγω] To preclude his being misunderstood, as if
he were asking εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία judy... . μὴ ἄδικος x.7.A. from his own enlight-
ened Christian view, Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this aecord-
ing toa human standard * after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite
apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the
idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in ac-
cordance with mere human reason. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 8; Gal. iii. 15 ;
Soph. Aj. 761: κατ’ ἄνϑρωπον φρονεῖ. “41 say this just as an ordinary man,
not under the influence of the divine Spirit, may well say it.” Respecting
the expression κατὰ dv3p., which is capable according to the context of great
variety of meaning, compare Fritzsche in loc. It is wrongly inferred from
κατὰ avdp. λέγω that the question μὴ ἄδικος x.7.A. was meant to receive an
affirmative answer, because asa negative query it would not be κατὰ ἄνϑρ.
(see Philippi). But this view overlooks the fact that the whole thought,
which is implied in the question calculated though it is for a negative reply,
—the thought of the unrighteousness of God in punishing—can in fact
only be put into expression κατὰ ἄνϑρωπον ; in the higher Christian insight
a conception so blasphemous and deserving of abhorrence can find neither
place nor utterance. The apology however, involved in κατὰ ἄνϑρ. λέγω, 15
applicable only to what goes before, not to what follows, to which Mehring, Th.
Schott and Hofmann refer it. This is the more obvious, since what imme-
diately follows is merely a repudiating μὴ γένοιτο, and the ἐπεί «.r.4., which
assigns the ground for this repudiation, is by no means an idea outside the
range of revelation, the application of which to a rational inference, and one
too so plainly right, cannot transfer it to the lower sphere of the κατὰ ἄνϑρ.
λέγειν. -- Ver. 6. ἐπεί] gives the ground of the μὴ γένοιτο ; for (if the God
who inflicts wrath is unrighteous) how will it be possible that He shall judge the
world? 'The future is to be left in its purely future sense, since it refers to
a future act taking place at any rate, as to which the only difficulty would
be to see how it was to be accomplished, if, etc. On ἐπεί, for otherwise, see Butt-

derstood, and then ἄδικος x.7.A. to be taken Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 159; Baeumlein,
as a question ensuing thereon (Mangold, p. p. 302 f.

106). A breaking up of the construction 2 For examples of ἐπιφέρειν used to ex-
without due ground. Compare, rather, ix. press the practical infliction of wrath or
14, a passage which in form also is perfectly punishment, see Raphel, Polyb.; Kypke, I.
parallel to this one. p. 160.

1See Hermann, ad Viger, p. 789, 810; 3 Compare Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 15.

4 Bernhardy, p. 241.

OHAP: 111,, ἢ. Lay

mann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 808 [E. T. 8697. κρινεῖ has the emphasis. — τὸν κόσμον is
to be taken, with most expositors, generally as meaning all mankind (com-
pare ver. 19). To be judge of the world and yet, as ἐπιφέρων τ. dpy., to be
ἄδικος, is a contradiction of terms ; the certainty that God is the former
would become an impossibility if He were the latter. Compare Gen. xviii.
25. Koppe, Reiche, Schrader, Olshausen, and Jatho, following older author-
ities, take it only of the Gentile world (xi. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 82): “Τὴ that
case God could not punish even the Gentile world for its idolatry, since it is
only in contrast therewith that the true worship of God appears in its full
value” (Reiche). But, in this explanation, the very essential idea : ‘‘ since

. appears” has first of all to be imported, an expedient which, in pres-
ence of the simplicity and clearness of our view, cannot but seem arbitrary.
Even the following proof, ver. 7 f., does not present a reference directly to
the judgment of the Gentiles. The argument itself rests on the premiss that
God can carry out the judgment of the world only as One who is righteous in
His decreeing of wrath. The opposite would be impossible, not only sub-
jectively, in God Himself (Th. Schott), but also objectively, as standing in
contradiction to the notion of a world-judgment. Sce ver. 7 ἢ. This
proposition however is so perfectly certain to the consciousness of faith, out of
which Paul asserts it, that there is no ground either for complaining of the
weakness of the proof (Riickert), or for reading the thoughts that form the
proof between the lines (Fritzsche and Mehring, with varying arbitrariness) ;
the more especially as afterwards, in ver. 7, a still further confirmation of the
ἐπεί. . . . κόσμον follows.

Ver. 7 f. The ἐπεὶ πῶς ὁ κρινεῖ Θεὸς τ. κόσμ. receives its illustrative confirma-
tion ; for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous and never-
theless is to judge the world, every ground for judging man as a sinner
must be superseded by the circumstance already discussed, viz. that His
truth has been glorified by man’s falsehood (ver. 4 f.) ; and (ver. 8) as to
the case of man himself, there would result the principle directly worthy of
condemnation, that he should do evil in order that good might come.
Comp. Th. Schott, and in substance also Hofmann and Morison. The ar-
gument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put (ἐπεί from ver. 6)
the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd
consequences. (See this, as early as Chrysostom.) Another view is that
of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Riickert, K6ll-
ner, Tholuck, Philippi, and Umbreit, that the objection of ver. 5 is here am-
plified. But it is quite as arbitrary and in fact impossible (hence Philippi
resorts to the violent expedient of putting in a parenthesis not only xara
ἄνϑρ. λέγω, but also «μὴ γένοιτο... . κόσμον), with the reference of γάρ, to
overleap entirely ver. 6, as it is strange to make the discourse so completely
abrupt and to represent the Apostle as making no reply at all to the first
part of the alleged amplification of the objection (to ver. 7), and as replying
to the second part (ver. 8) only by an anathema sit! (ὧν τ. xp. ἔνδ. 2.).
Against the view of Reiche, who, following Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and
Flatt, thinks that the Gentile is introduced as speaking in ver. 7 (compare
Olshausen), we may decisively urge the close connection therewith of ver.

118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

8, where Paul includes himself also, but does not ‘‘take speech in hand again”
(Reiche). See besides on τὸν κόσμον, ver. 0. --- ἀλήϑεια and ψεύσματι are terms
chosen in reference to ver. 4, because the question proposed in ver. 5 was
in fact suggested by that verse ; but they represent, as ver. 5 proves, the
ideas of δικαιοσύνῃ and ἀδικία ; hence: the moral truth, i.e. the holy right-
-eousness of God (see on John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; Phil. iv. 8), and the moral
‘ Falsehood, i.e. the immorality (Rey. xxii. 15), wickedness of man.’— érepio-
σευσεν εἰς τ. δόξ. αὐτοῦ] has abounded richly to His glory, that is, has shown
itself in superabundant measure, which redounds to His glory. The stress
of this protasis lies on ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι. --- The aorist denotes the result of
the having abounded, which subsists at the day of judgment (realized as
present by ri . . . . κρίνομαι) as up to that point accomplished fact. — ἐτῇ
namely, after that assumed result has occurred. —xayé] emphasizing the
contradictory relation to the contents of the protasis, according to which
this ἐγώ seems actually to have deserved something of God : even I (Baeum-
lein, Partik. p. 150) who have notwithstanding glorified God through my
ψεύσμα. So in substance (‘‘ just I” according to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 837)
also Tholuck and Morison ; compare Philippi: ‘‘ even J still.” There lies in
the expression something of boldness and defiance ; but it is not equivalent
to καὶ αὐτός, Or αὐτός ἐγώ, to the meaning of which Th. Schott and Hofmann
ultimately bring it (‘‘even personally still”). Wemay add that this first
person, individualizing just like the preceding one (ἐν τ. ἐμῷ ψ.), of course
represents the sinner in general (with an intended application to the Jevs,
see on ver. 5 f.), and not the Apostle himself, as Schrader and Fritzsche
think. Against this latter theory it is decisive that κρίνομαι after ver. 6
must indicate, not the judgment of enemies, but necessarily the divine act
of judging. — ὡς duapr.| as a sinner, not ‘as a Gentile” (Reiche, Mehring,
and others.) — Ver. 8. καὶ μή] Before μή we must again supply τί
should we not, etc. Respecting ri μή, quidni, see Hartung, Partikell. 11.
p- 162. Accordingly, as καί continues the question, only a comma is to be
placed after κρίνομαι. ---- As regards the construction, Paul has dropped the
plan of the sentence begun with καὶ μή (and why should we not do evil, etc.),
being led away from it by the inserted remark, and has joined ὅτι ποιήσωμεν
in direct address (let us do) to the λέγειν, so that ὅτι is recitative. But on
account of this very blending there is no necessity either to make a paren-
thesis or to supply anything.? Many erroneous attempts have been made
by commentators (see the various explanations in Morison) to bring out an
unbroken construction, as e.g. the supplying of ἐροῦμεν or some such word
after μή (Erasmus, Calvin, Wolf, Koppe, Benecke, and others, also van

: and why

Hengel).

1 Those who take ver. τ f. as spoken in
the person of the Gentile (see especially
Reiche) explain the ἀλήϑεια Θεοῦ of the true
religion (how entirely opposed to ver. 4!),
ψεύσματι Of idolatry, and ἁμαρτωλός as Gen-
tile.

2For similar attractions (compare es-
pecially Xen. Anad. vi. 4,18)in which the

Even the expedient of Matthias is untenable.*

The same may

discourse is interrupted by an intervening
clause,and then continued in aregimen de-
pendent on the latter and no longer suit-
able to the beginning, see Hermann ad
Viger. Ὁ. 745, 894 ; Bernhardy, p. 464; Dissen,
ad Dem. de cor. Ὁ. 846, 418; Kriiger, gramm.
Unters. Ὁ. 457 Τῇ.

3 He brings forward the modal definition :

CHAP. III., 8. 119
be said of that of Hofmann, who supplies an ἐστίν after καὶ μή, and renders:
‘“ Why does it not happen to me according to that, as (καϑώς) we are slandered,”
etc. But if it is quite gratuitous to supply ἐστί, it is still more so to make
this ἐστί equivalent to γίνεταί μοι. Besides the negation, which, according
to our construction, harmonizes with the deliberative sense, would neces-
sarily be not μή but od, since it would negative the reality of the εἶναι under-
stood (1 Cor. vi. 7 ; Luke xix. 23, xx. 5 al.). The correct view is held also
by Winer and Buttmann (p. 235, 211), Philippi and Morison. — καϑὼς
βλασφημ.} as we (Christians) are calumniated, namely, as if we did evil in
order that, etc. Then the following καὶ καϑὼς . .. . λέγειν contains the
accusation, current possibly in Rome also, that the Christians were in the
habit of repeating this maxim even as a doctrinal proposition. As to the
distinction between φημί (to assert) and λέγω, compare on 1 Cor. x. 15.
What may have occasioned such slanders against the Christians? Certainly
their non-observance of the Mosaic law, to which they ventured to deem
themselves not bound, in order to gain eternal life by the grace of God
through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, which was an offence to
the Jews. The plural is not to be referred to Paul alone, which would
be arbitrary on account of the preceding singular; the Christians are
conceived as Pauline (comp. Acts xxi. 21) ; and on the part of Jews and
Judaizers (τινές, certain people, as in 1 Cor. xv. 12) are slanderously and
falsely (for see v. 20, vi. 1, 15 ff.) accused of doing evil that good might come
(might ensue as result). Under this general category, namely, the calumni-
ators reduced the bearing of the Christians, so far as the latter, without
regulating their conduct by the Mosaic law, were nevertheless assured, and
professed, that they should through faith in Christ obtain the divine bless-
ings of salvation. That general accusation was an injurious abstract infer-
ence thence deduced. — ὧν] i.e. of those, who follow this principle de-
structive of the whole moral order of God. They form the nearest logical
subject. With just indignation the Apostle himself, having a deep sense
of morality, makes us feel in conclusion by ὧν τὸ κρῖμα x.7.2. how deserving
of punishment is the consequence, which, if God be regarded as an unright-
eous judge of the world, must ensue for moral conduct from the premiss that
God is glorified by the sin of men. The reference of ὧν to the slanderers
(Theodoret, Grotius, Tholuck, Mehring, Hofmann) is unsuitable, because it
separates the weighty closing sentence from the argumentation itself, and
makes it merely an accessory thought. —7d κρῖμα] The definite judicial

ὡς ἁμαρτωλός as the main element; thenthe text. With this artificial interpretation,

modality of the κρίνομαι opposed to this is
Kal μὴ καϑὼς βλασφημ. K.T.A.: ““ Why thenam
even I still judged like a sinner, and not
rather according to that, which we are
slanderously reported of, and which some
affirm that we say: namely, according to
this, Let us do evil, that good may come?”
Instead of saying : καὶ μὴ ὡς ποιήσας τὰ ἀγαϑά,
Paul, in the indignation of excited feeling,
gives to the thought which he had begun
the different turn which it presents in the

we must remember that Paul would have
written καὶ οὐ instead of καὶ μή, since it is an
objective relation that is here in question
(compare Col. ii. 8 a@.); that instead of
καϑώς we should have expected the repeti-
tion of the ὡς ; and that the notion of κρίνειν,
as it prevails in the connection (compare
also the following τὸ κρῖμα), does not suit
the assumed thought, ὡς ποιήσας τὰ ἀγαϑά,
Comp. also Morison, p. 79,

120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.
sentence, decree of punishment at the last judgment. — ἔνδικον] accordant
with justice, rightful. Compare Heb. 11. 2. Frequently used in classic
writers.
Ver. 9. When Paul, in vv. 6-8, has defended the righteousness of God as
decreeing wrath (ver. 5) in the face of the proposition, correct in itself,
that human sin turns out to God’s glory, he has thereby also deprived the
sinner of all the defence, which he might derive from the misapplication of
that proposition. This position of the case, as it results from vv. 6-8 (οὗν),
she now expresses, and that in the lively form of an interrogation, here accom-
panied by a certain triumph : What then? Are we in the position to apply a
defence for ourselves? We cannot therefore with most expositors (including
Tholuck, Philippi, Bisping) assume that Paul here reverts to ver. 1. — That
the punctuation should not be τί οὖν προεχόμεϑα ; as It is given by Oecu-
menius, 1, Koppe, Th. Schott) is plain from the answer, which is not οὐδὲν
πάντως, but οὐ πάντως. And that in adopting the general inclusive form
Paul speaks from the standpoint of the Jewish consciousness, and not in
the person of the Christians (Hofmann), is apparent from the context both
before (see vv. 8, 5, 7) and after (‘Iovdaiove te καὶ "EAA., and see ver. 19). —
τί οὖν] sc. ἐστί (Acts xxi. 22; 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26), what takes place then? how
is then the state of the case? Compare vi. 15, xi. 7; frequent in classical
writers ; comp. on vv. 3, 5. — προεχόμεϑα] Do we put forward (anything) in
our defence? Is it the case with us, that’ something serves us as a defence,
that can secure us against the punitive righteousness of God? προέχειν,
which in the active form means to hold before, tohave in advance, to bring
Jorward, and intransitively to be prominent, also to excel (see Wetstein, also
Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 24), has in the middle simply the signification
to hold before oneself, to have before oneself, either in the proper sense, e.g. of
holding forth spears for defence (Hom. 71. xvii. 355), or of having oxen in
front (Od. 111. 8), or of holding in front the ram’s head (Herod. ii. 42), etc.,
or in the ethical sense : to put forward, πρόσχημα ποιεῖσϑαι, to apply something
Sor one’s own defence, as in Soph. Ant. 80: σὺ μὲν τάδ᾽ ἂν rpobyor, Thue. 1.
140, 5 and Kriiger im loc., and also Valckenaer, ad. fr. Callim. p. 227.7
This sense of the word is therefore rightly urged by Hemsterhuis, Venema,
Koppe, Benecke, Fritzsche (‘‘ utimurne praetextu ?”), Krehl, Ewald, Mor-
ison; compare also Th. Schott. This explanation is the only one war-
ranted by linguistic usage,* as well as suited to the connection (see above).

1 More frequent in Greek writers is the ject be self-evidently implied in the idea it-

form προΐσχεσϑαι, in this sense, as 6.0. Thue.
1, 26, 3. Compare also πρόφασιν προΐσχεσϑαι,
Herod. vi. 117, viii. 3; Herodian, iv. 14, 3;
Dem. in Schol. Hermog. p. 106, 16: προΐσ-
χεσϑαι νόμον.

2 Also adopted by Valck. Schol. in Lue. p.
258. Stillhe would read προεχώμεϑα and take
τί οὖν mpoex. together. But the absolute
position of mpoex., which has been made an
objection to our explanation (Riickert,
Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi, Hofmann),
does not affect it, since all verbs, if the ob-

self, may be used so that we can mentally
supply a τί (Winer, p. 552 [E. T. 593 1.1). And
the subjunctive, which van Hengel also re-
gards as necessary with our view, is not re-
quired ; the indicative makes the question
more definite and precise (Winer, p. 267
[E. T. 284]). Ewald. likewise: reads τί οὖν
προεχώμεϑα (Subjunctive); but expunges
yap afterwards, and takes οὐ interroga-
tively, ‘‘ What shall we now put forward in
defence ? did we not already, at the outset,
prove altogether that Jews,” etc. But the

CHAP. III., 9. 121
The most usual rendering (adopted by Tholuck, K6éllner, de Wette, Riickert,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Baur, Umbreit, Jatho and Mangold) is that
of the Peshito and Vulgate (praecellimus eos?), and of Theophylact :
ἔχομέν τι πλέον. . . . Kat εὐδοκιμοῦμεν οἱ ᾿Τουδαῖοι, ὡς τόν νόμον Kai τὴν περιτομὴν
Compare Theodoret: τί οὖν κατέχομεν περισσόν; Philippi: ‘‘ Have
we any advantage for ourselyes?’ and now also Hofmann (who held
the right view formerly in his Schriftbew. I. p. 501) : ‘‘Do we raise our-
selves above those, upon whom God decrees His judgment of wrath ?”
But the mere usus loguendi, affording not a single instance of the middle
employed with the signification antecellere, raising oneself above, surpassing,
or the like, decisively condemns this usual explanation in its different mod-
ifications.1 And would not the answer ov πάντως, in whatever sense we take
it, so long as agreeably to the context we continue to understand as the
subject the Jewish, not the Christian ee (as Hofmann takes it), be at variance
with the answer πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον given in ver. 2? The shifts of ex-
positors to escape this inconsistency (the usual one being that Paul here
means subjective advantages in respect of justification, while in ver. 2 he
treats of objective theocratic advantages) are forced expedients, which, not
at all indicated by any clause of more precise definition on the part of Paul
himself, only cast suspicion on the explanation. Wetstein, Michaelis,
Cramer, Storr, and recently Matthias, take zpoey. as the passive : are sur-
passed: [See Note XXIX. p. 148.] ‘‘ Stand we (at all) at a disadvantage ?
Are we still surpassed by the Gentiles ?”? But how could this question be
logically inferred from the foregoing without the addition of other thoughts ?
And in what follows it is not the sinful equality of the Gentiles with the
Jews, but that of the Jews with the Gentiles which is made conspicuous.
See also ver. 19. Mehring, in thorough opposition to the context, since
not a single hint of a transition to the Gentiles is given, makes the question
(comp. Oecumenius, 2), and that in the sense ‘‘ Are we at a disadvantage ?”
be put into the mouth even of a Gentile. — οὐ πάντως] Vulgate : nequaquam ;
Theophylact : οὐδαμῶς. This common rendering (compare the French poiné
de tout) is, in accordance with the right explanation of προεχόμεϑα, the only
proper one. The expression, instead of which certainly πάντως οὐ might
have been used (1 Cor. xvi. 12), is quite analogous to the οὐ πάνυ, where it
means in no wise,’ so that the negative is not transposed, and yet it does

δεξάμενοι.

omission of γάρ is only supported by D*.
Van Hengel despairs of a proper explana-
tion, and regards the text as corrupt.

1 Reiche (and similarly Olshausen) retains
the same exposition in his exegetical Com-
mentary; but takes προεχ. as passive, are
preferred, referring in support of his view
to Plut. de Stoic. contrad. 13 (Mor. p. 1038 C),
where, however, in τοῖς ἀγαϑοῖς πᾶσι ταῦτα
προσήκει kar’ οὐδὲν προεχομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Atos,
the meaning of’this προεχομένοις is becoming
surpassed. In his Commentar. crit. I. p.
26 ff., he has passed over to the linguis-
tically correct rendering praetexerc, but un-

derstands nevertheless the first person of
Paul himself, and that in the sense: ‘“‘ num
Judaeis peccandé praetextum porrigo ?” But
the middle means invariably to hold some-
thing (for protection) before oneself; as
προφασίζομαι also, by which Hesychius prop-
erly explains the word, always refers to
the subject, which excuses iése/f by a pre-
text.

2 Compare Xen. Ando. iii. 2,19; Plut. Mor.
p. 1038 Ὁ.

3 Asin Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 11; Anabd.i. 8.143
Herodian; vi. 5,11; Dem. OJ. iii. 21; Plat.
Lach. Ὁ. 189 C; Lucian, Tim. 24 (see Har-

122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

not cancel the idea of the adverb, but on the contrary is strengthened by
the adverb. By this means the emphatic affirmation, which would have
been given by the πάντως alone, is changed into the opposite.’ Compare
Winer, p. 515 f. [E. T. 554 1.1. The comparison with 5- (Buttmann,
neut. Gr. p. 334) [E. T. 389] is utterly foreign, since the expression is a pure
Greek one.? The explanation, on which van Hengel also insists : not alto-
gether, not in every respect (Grotius, Wetstein, Morus, Flatt, Kéllner, Mat-
thias, Umbreit, Mehring, and Mangold), as in 1 Cor. v. 10, fails to tally with
the true explanation of προεχόμεϑα and the unrestricted character of the fol-
lowing proof. — προῃτιασάμεϑα] namely, not just from ver. 5 onward (Hof-
mann), but, in accordance with the following ’Iovdeiove τε κ. “Βλληνας, in 11. 1
ff. as to the Jews, and ini. 18 ff. as to the Gentiles.* It is therefore as ini. 5 and
frequently elsewhere, the plural of the author, not : we Christians (Hofmann).
As to the construction, πάντας may either be joined as an adjective to ’Iovd.
τ. κι "EAA., or as a substantive to the infinitive, in either case expressing
the idea of all collectively, nemine excepto. The latter mode of connection is
preferable, because it gives a more marked prominence to the idea of total-
ity, which harmonizes with the following vv. 10-12. Hence : we have before
brought the charge against Jews and Gentiles, that all, etc. Comp. Hofmann
and Morison. There is elsewhere no instance of the compound προαιτ. ;
the Greeks use προκατηγορεῖν. ---- ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι] They are—while still unre-
generate, a more precise definition that is self-evident—all wnder sin, an ex-
pression denoting not merely a state of sin in general, but moral dependence
on the power of sin. Compare vii. 25; Gal. ili. 22. But if this be the case
with Jews and Gentiles (not merely on the Gentile side), then the Jew, after
the way of escape indicated in ver. 5 has been cut off by vv. 6-8, has no
defence left to him as respects his liability to punishment any more than
the Gentile.* Accordingly the idea of liability to punishment is not yet ex-
pressed in ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι, but is meant only to be inferred from it.

Vv. 10-18. Conformity with Scripture of the charge referred to, ’Iovdaiove
τε καὶ "Ελλην. πάντ. ὑφ᾽ ἀμ. εἶναι, so far (ver. 19) as this charge cuts off from
the Jews every προέχεσϑαι of ver. 9. — The recitative ὅτε introduces citations
from Scripture very various in character, which after the national habit
(Surenhusius, καταλλ. thes. 7) are arranged in immediate succession. They

_are taken from the LXX., though for the most part with variations, partly

tung, Partikell, II. p. 87). Those passages
where ov πάνυ negatives with a certain sub-

p. 146, ed. 3; Duncan, Lex. Hom. ed. Rost,
p. 888. Compare οὐδὲν πάντως, Herod. v.

tlety or ironical turn (not quite, not just), are
not cases here in point; see Schoemann, ad
Is. Ὁ. 276.

1 Bengel: ‘‘Judaeus diceret πάντως, at
Paulus contradicit.”

2 Compare Theognis, 305, Bekker : οἱ κακοὶ
ov πάντως (by NO Means) κακοὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς
γεγόνασιν. Hp. ad Diogn. 9:
ἐφηδόμενος. (Dy NO Means rejoicing) τοῖς
Per-
fectly similar is also the Homeric οὐ πάμπαν,
decidedly not ; see Nagelsbach on the Jliad,

οὐ πάντως

ἁμαρτήμασιν ἡμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεχόμενος.

84, 65.

8 Paul however does not say Gentiles and
Jews, but the converse, because here again,
as in previous cases where both are group-
ed together (in the last instance ii. 9 f.), he
has before his mind the divine historical
order, which in the very point of sinfulness
tells against the Jew the more seriously.

4For statements of Greek writers re-
garding the universality, without any ex-
ception, of sin, see Spiess, Logos spermat, p.
220 f.

CHAP. 1Π1., 10-18. 123
due to quotation from memory, and partly intentional, for the purpose of
defining the sense more precisely. The arrangement is such that testimony
is adduced for—t1st¢, the state of sin generally (vv. 10-12) ; 2nd, the practice
of sin in word (vv. 13, 14) and deed (vv. 15-17) ; and 3rd, the sinful sowrce
of the whole (ver. 18). More artificial schemes of arrangement are not to
be sought (as e.g. in Hofmann), not even by a play on numbers.’— οὐκ ἔστι
δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἰς] There exists not a righteous person (who is such as he ought
to be), not even one. Taken from Ps. xiv. 1, where the Sept. has ποιῶν
χρηστότητα instead of δίκαιος ; Paul has put the latter on purpose at once, in
accordance with the aim of his whole argument, prominently to characterize
the ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι as a want of δικαιοσύνη. Michaelis regards the words as
the Apostle’s own, ‘under which he comprehends all that follows.” So also
Eckermann, Koppe, Kéllner, and Fritzsche. But itis quite at variance
with the habit of the Apostle, after using the formula of quotation, to pre-
fix to the words of Scripture a summary of their contents ; and this suppo-
sition is here the more improbable, seeing that the Apostle continues in
ver. 11 in the words of the same Psalm, with the first verse of which our
passage substantially agrees.?— Ver. 11 is from Ps. xiv. 2, and so quoted,
that the negative sense which results indirectly from the text in the Hebrew
and LXX. is expressed by Paul directly : there exists not the understanding
one (the practically wise, ὁ.6. the pious one; see Gesenius, Thes. 8. Ὁ. 051):
there exists not the seeker after God (whose thoughts and endeavors are direct-
ed towards God, Heb. xi. 6, and see Gesenius, 8. Ὁ. 01). The article de-
notes the genus as a definite concrete representing it. Compare Buttmann’s
neut. Gr. Ὁ. 253 f. [E. T. 295] * — ἐκζητ. 1 stronger than the simple form ; com-
pare 1 Pet. i. 10 ; very frequent in the LXX. — Ver. 12. From Ps. xiv. 3 closely
after the LXX. ἐξέκλιναν, namely from the right way, denotes the demor-

-

alization (see Gesenius, 8. Ὁ. 1D), as does also ἠχρειώϑησαν, NIN : they

have become useless, corrupt, good for nothing, ἀχρεῖοι (Matt. xxv. 30);
Polyb. i. 14, 0, 1. 48, 9. The following ποιῶν χρηστότητα is correlative.
This ἅμα (altogether) ἠχρειώϑ. has still πάντες for its subject. — ἕως ἑνός] The
ovk ἔστιν holds as far as to one (inclusively), so that therefore not one is ex-
cepted. Compare Jud. iv. 16. Hebraism, see Ewald, Lehrb. § 217, 3.
The Latin ad wnum omnes is similar. — Ver. 13 as far as ἐδολ. is from Ps. v.
10, and thence till αὐτῶν from Ps. ΟΧ]. 4, both closely after the LXX.*—
τάφος ἀνεῳγμ. ὁ Adp. ait.] Estius : ‘‘Sicut sepulcrum patens exhalat tetrum

1 According to Hofmann the first and
second parts consist each of seven proposi-
tions. Thus even the conclusion of ver. 12,
οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός, is to bereckoned as a
separate proposition ! How all the parallel-
ism of Hebrew poetry is mutilated by such
artifices !

2 Regarding οὐδὲ els see on 1 Cor. vi. 5, and
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. Ὁ. 214 D.

3 Onthe idea, whichis also classical, of sin
as folly, see Nigelsbach, Hom. Theol. VI. 2.
The form συνίων, 580 accentuated by Lach-

mann ; compare Buttmann, I. p. 543), or
συνιὼν (though the former is the more
probable ; compare Winer, p. 77 f. [E. T. 81],
also Ellendt, Zex. Soph. Il. p. 768), is the
usual one in the Sept. (instead of συνιείς,
Ps. xxxiii. 15). Ps. xli. 1; Jer. xxx. 12;
2 Chron. xxxiy. 12 δέ αἱ.

4The MSS. of the LXX. which read the
whole passage vv. 13-18 at Ps. xiv. 8, have
been interpolated from our passage in
Christian times. See Wolf, Cur. on ver. 10.

124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ac pestiferum foetorem, ita ex ore illorum impuri, pestilentes noxiique
sermones exeunt.” Comp. Pelagius, Bengel, Tholuck, Mehring, and Hof-
mann. But it is more in harmony with the further description, as well as
the parallel in Jer. v. 16 (where the quiver of the Chaldeans is compared
with an open grave), to find the comparison in the point that, when the
godless have opened their throats for lying and corrupting discourse, it is
just as if a grave stood opened (observe the perfect) to which the corpse
ought to be consigned for decay and destruction.’ So certainly and una-
voidably corrupting is their discourse. Moreover λάρυγξ, which is here to
be taken in its original sense (as organ of speech, not equivalent to φάρυγξ,
the gullet) is more forcibly graphic than στόμα, representing the speech as
passionate crying. Compare λαρυγγίζειν, Dem. 3823, 1, and λαρυγγισμός, of
crying lustily. — ἐδολιοῦσαν] they were deceiving. The imperfect denotes
what had taken place as continuing up till the present time ; and on this
form of the third person plural, of very frequent occurrence in the LXX.,
see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 60; Ahrens, Dial. 11. p. 304, I. p. 237. —id¢ ἀσπίδων]
The poison of asps, a figure for the insidiously corrupting.?—Ver. 14 is from
Ps. x. 7, taken freely from the LXX., who however with their πικρίας devi-
ate from the Hebrew 411), because they either read it otherwise or trans-
lated it erroneously. — πικρία, figurative designation of the hateful nature.
Comp. Eph. iv. 31; Acts vill. 23; James 11], 14 ; see Wetstein.—Vv. 1ὅ--
17 are from Is. lix. 7, 8, quoted freely and with abbreviations from the
LXX. — év ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν] Where they go, is desolation (fragments TW) and
misery, which they produce. — ὁδὸν εἰρ. οὐκ ἔγν.] 1.6. a way on which one
walks peacefully (the opposite of the ὁδοί, on which is σύντριμμα. κ. ταλαιπ.),
they have not known (2 Cor. v. 21), it has remained strange to them.—Ver.
18 is from Ps. xxxvi.1. The fear of God, which would have preserved
them from such conduct and have led them to an entirely different course,
is not before their eyes. ‘‘ There is objectivity ascribed to a condition
which is, psychologically, subjective.” Morison.

Ver. 19. The preceding quotations (‘‘in quibus magna est verborum
atrocitas,” Melanchthon) were intended to prove that Jews and Gentiles are
collectively under the dominion of sin (ver. 9); but how easily might it be
imagined on the part of the conceited Jews* that the above passages of
Scripture (of which those in vv. 10, 11 and 12, taken from Ps. xiv., really
refer originally to the Gentiles, to Babylon), however they might affect the
Gentiles, could have no application to themselves, the Jews, who had no
need therefore to take them to themselves, as if they also were included in
the same condemnation. Such a distinction, however, which could only
promote a self-exaltation and self-justification at variance with the divine
purpose in those declarations of His word, they were to forego, seeing that
everything that the Scripture says has its bearing for the Jews. The

1 The metaphorical representation in 2 See similar passages in Alberti, Odss. p.
classical passages, in which, e¢.g., the 301.
Cyclops is termed ζῶν τύμβος (Anth. Pal. xiv. 3 See especially Eisenmenger’s entdecktes

109, 3), or the vultures ἔμψυχοι τάφοι (Gor- Judenthum, I. Ὁ. 568 ff.
gias, ap. Longin. 3), is not similar.

CHAP, III., 19. 125
Apostle therefore now continues, and that with very emphatic bringing out
of the ὅσα in the first half of the verse and of the πᾶν and πᾶς in the second :
we know however (as in 11. 2) that whatsoever the law saith, it speaketh to those
that are in the law, consequently that the Jews may not except themselves
from the reference of any saying in Scripture. —éca] whatsoever, therefore
also what is expressed in such condemnatory passages as the above, with-
out exception. — ὁ νόμος] in accordance with its reference to vv. 10-18, is
necessarily to be taken here as designation of the O. 7. generally (comp. 1
Cor. xiv. 21; John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 ; 2 Macc. ii. 18); not, with Hun-
nius, Calovius, Balduin, and Sebastian Schmid, of the law in the dogmatic
sense (comp. Matthias); or of the Mosaie law, as Ammon and Gléckler, Th.
Schott and Hofmann take it, confusing in various ways the connection.’
So also van Hengel, who quite gratuitously wishes to assume an enthymeme
with a minor premiss to be understood (bué the law condemns all those sin-
ners). The designation of the Ὁ. T. by 6 νόμος, which forms the first, and
for Israel most important, portion of it, was here occasioned by τοῖς ἐν τῷ
νόμῳ, t.e. those who are in the law as their sphere of life. — λέγει. . .. λαλεῖ]
All that the law says (materially, or respecting its contents, all λόγοι of the .
law), it speaks (speaks out, of the outward act which makes the Adyo: be
heard, makes known through speech) to those who, etc. Comp. on John
vill. 48 ; Mark i, 34; 1 Cor. ix. 8, xii. 3. The dative denotes those to
whom the λαλεῖν applies (Kriiger, ὃ 48, 7, 18). Those who have their state
of life within the sphere of the law are to regard whatsoever the law says as
addressed to themselves, whether it was meant primarily for Jews or Gentiles.
How this solemnly emphatic quaecungue heaps wpon the Jews the Divine
sentence of ‘‘ guilty,” and cuts off from them every refuge, as if this or
that declaration did not apply to or concern them ! — ἵνα πᾶν στόμα κ.τ.λ.]
in order that every mouth (therefore also the Jew) may be stopped (Heb. xi. 33;
Ps. evii. 42; Job v. 16; and see Wetstein), etc. This, viz. that no one_
shall be able to bring forward anything for his justification, is represented
in iva—which is not ita ut—as intended by the speaking law, ὁ.6. by God
speaking in the law. Reiche unjustly characterizes this thought as absurd
in every view and from every standpoint ; the ἵνα πᾶν κ.τ.2. does not an-
nounce itself as the sole and exclusive end, but on the contrary, without

1 According to Hofmann (compare his
Schriftbeweis, I. p. 623 f.; so too, in sub-
stance, Th. Schott) the train of thought is :
after ver. 9 ff. the only further question
that could be put is, whether anything is
given to Christians that exempts them from
the general guilt and punishment. The
law possibly? No, “they know that this
law has absolutely (ὅσα) no other tenor than
that which it presents to those who belong to
iis domain, for this purpose, that the whole
world, in the same extent in which itis under
sin, must in its own time (this idea being con-
veyed by the aorists φραγῇ and γένηται),
when it comes to stand before God its Judge, be

dumb before Him and recognize the justice of
His condemning sentence.” This interpreta-
tion, obscuring with a far-fetched in-
genuity the plain sense of the words, and
wringing out of it a tenor of thought to
which it is a stranger, is a further result of
Hofmann’s having misunderstood the zpoe-
χόμεϑα in ver. 9,and having referred it, as
also the subsequent προῃτιασάμεϑα, to the
Christians as subject, an error which neces-
sarily deranged and dislocated for him the
entire course of argument in vv. 9-20. At
the same time it would not be even histor-
ically true that the law has absolutely no
other tenor, ete.

126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.
negativing other and higher ends, merely expresses one single and special
teleological point, which is however the very point which the connection
here required to be cited. The time to be mentally supplied for φραγῇ and
γένηται is the future generally reckoned from the present of λαλεῖ, not that
of the jinal judgment, which does not harmonize with the thought in ver. 9
to which the series of Scripture testimonies in vv. 10-18 is appended. —
ὑπόδικος] punishable, κατάκριτος, ἀπαῤῥησίαστος, Theophylact; frequently used
by classic writers, but elsewhere neither in the N. T. nor in the LXX. or
Apocrypha. — τῷ Θεῷ ] belongs, not to φραγῇ (Matthias), but, after the man-
ner of the more closely defining parallelism, merely to ὑπόδικ. γένηται : to
God, as the Being to whom the penalty is to be paid.’ — γένηται] The result
which is to manifest itself, as in ver. 4. — πᾶς ὁ κόσμος] quite generally (ver.
9); comp. Eph. ii. 8. And if Paul has described’ this generality (comp.
also ver. 23) thus ‘‘insigni figura et verborum emphasi” (Melancthon), the
‘result extending to all humanity is not contradicted by the virtue of indi-
viduals, such as the patriarchs ; for from the ideal, but at the same time
legally true (comp. Gal. iii. 10), standpoint of the Apostle this virtuousness
is still no δικαιοσύνη (but only a minor degree of the want of it), and does
not therefore form an exception from the category of the ὑπόδικον εἶναι τῷ
Θεῷ. See ver. 20. Though different as respects degree, yet all are affected
᾿ and condemned by the declarations quoted ; every one has a share in this
corruption. ὃ

Ver. 20. [See Note XXX. p. 148.] Διότι] propterea quod, i. 19, not prop-
terea (Beza, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Tholuck), is to be divided from the pre-
ceding only by a comma, and supplies the objective reason of that iva x.7.A.
of the law : because the relation of righteousness will accrue to no flesh from
works of the law. For if δικαιοσύνη should come from works of the law, the
law would in fact open up the way of righteousness, and therefore that iva
πᾶν x.T.A. would not be correct.* As to πᾶσα σάρξ, equivalent to πᾶς ἄνϑρωπος,
but conveying the idea of moral imperfection and sinfulness in presence of
God, see on Acts 11. 17 ; 1Cor. i. 20 ; and compare generally on Gal. ii. 16.
That with regard to the Gentiles Paul is thinking of the natural law (Gi. 14)

1The opposite is ἀναίτιοσ ἀϑανάτοισιν,
Hesiod, ἔργ. 825, and ϑεοῖς ἀναμπλάκητος,
Aesch. Agam. 352. Comp. Plat. Zeqg. viii.
p. 816 B: ὑπόδικος ἔστω τῷ βλαφϑέντι, p. 868
D, 11, p. 9832; Dem. 518, 8 al.

2 From the poetic tenor of the passage
ἵνα πᾶν «.7.A. Ewald conjectures that it re-
produces a passage from the O. T. that is
now Jost. But how readily may it be con-
ceived that Paul, who was himself of a
deeply poetic nature, should, in the vein of
higher feeling into which he had been
brought by the accumulated words of
psalm and prophecy, spontaneously ex-
press himself as he has done! That ὑπόδι-
«kos does not again occur in his writings,
matters not; ἔνδικος also in ver. 8 is not
again used.

3 Compare Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, II.
p. 152 f.

4 According to Hofmann, in pursuance
of his erroneous interpretation of ver. 19,
διότι «.7.A. is Meant to contain the speci-
fication of the reason “‘ why the word of the
law was published to the Jews for no other ob-
ject, than that the whole world might be pre-
cluded from alt objection against the condemnr-
ing sentence of God.” Compare also Th.
Schott. But Paul has not at all expressed
in ver. 19 the thought ‘for no other object ;”’
he must in that case, instead of the simple
ἵνα which by no means excludes other ob-
jects, have written μόνον ἵνα, or possibly eis
οὐδὲν εἰ μὴ ἵνα, or in some other way con-
veyed the non-expressed thought.

CHAP. III., 20. 127
cannot be admitted, seeing that in the whole connection he has to do with
the law ef Moses. But neither may the thought be imported into the pas-
sage with reference to the Gentiles : ‘‘if they should be placed under the
Jaw and should have ἔργα νόμου" (Riickert, comp. Philippi and Mehring),
since, according to the context, it is only with reference to the Jews (ver. 19)
that the question is dealt with as to no flesh being righteous—a general re-
lation which, as regards the Gentiles, is perfectly self-evident, seeing that
the latter are ἄνομοι, and have no ἔργα νόμου in the proper sense whatever. —
Respecting ἔργα νόμου," works in harmony with the law of Moses, the ἔργα
being the prominent conception, works which are fulfilments of its precepts,
comp. on ii. 156. Moreover that it is not specially the observance of the
ritual portions of the law (Pelagius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Semler, Ammon),
but that of the’ Mosaic law in general which is meant, is clear partly from
the expression itself, which is put without limitation, partly from the con-
textual relation of the clause to what goes before, and partly from the fol-
lowing διὰ yap νόμου k.t.A., from which the ethical law is so far from being
excluded,’ that it is on the contrary precisely this aspect of the νόμος which
is specially meant. — ob δικαιωϑῆσ.] See oni. 17. The future is to be un-
derstood either of the moral possibility, or, which is preferable on account
of iii. 20, purely in the sense of time, and that of the futwre generally: ‘‘In
every case in which justification (1.6. the being declared righteous by God)
shall occur, it will not result from,” etc., so that such works should be the
causa meritoria. The reference to the future judgment (Reiche) is contro-
verted by the fact that throughout the entire connection justification is re-
garded as a relation arising immediately from faith, and not as something
to be decided only at the judgment. See ver. 21 ff. and chap. iv. For

this reason there is immediately afterwards introduced as the counterpart of .,

the δικαιοσύνη, which comes directly from faith, the ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας, which
comes directly from the law. It is certain, moreover, that in οὐ δικαιωϑ.
x.T.2. Paul had Ps. cxliii. 2 in view, but instead of πᾶς ζῶν he put πᾶσα
σάρξ aS more significant for the matter in hand. — Jn what sense now shall
no one from works of the law become righteous before God, i.e. sach that God
looks upon him as righteous ?* Not in the sense that perfect compliance
with the law would be insufficient to secure justification, against which the
fundamental law of the judge : of ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωϑήσονται (11. 18), would
be decisive ; but in the sense that no man, even with an outwardly faultless
observance of the law (comp. on Phil. iii 6), is in a position to offer to it
that full and right obedience, which alone would be the condition of a jus-

1 For ἔργων νόμου cannot be taken as daw
of works, as Miarcker uniformly wishes.
Comp. on ii. 15.

2 Paul always conceives the law as an un-
divided whole (comp. Usteri, p. 36), while
he yet has in his mind sometimes more the
ritual, sometimes more the moral, aspect
of this one divine νόμος, according to his
object and the connection (Ritschl, αἰέ-
kathol. K. p. 78). Comp. on Gal. ii. 16.

3In opposition to Hofmann, who in his
Schriflo. I. p. 612 urges the ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ
against the imputative sense of the passive
δικαιοῦσϑαι, see Wieseler on Gal. p. 192 f.
It is quite equivalent to παρὰ τ. Θεῷ, judice
Deo, Gal. iii. 11. See generally the thor-
ough defence of the sensus forensis of
δικαιοῦσϑαι in the N. T., also from classic
authors and from the O. T. in Morison, p.
163 ff.

128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

tification independent of extraneous intervention ; in fact, it is only through
_the law that man comes to aclear perception and consciousness of his moral
imperfection by nature (his unrighteousness). See Luther’s preface. That
this was the Apostle’s view, is proved by the reason which follows : διὰ yap
νόμου x.t.A. See, besides, especially chs. vii. and viii.; Gal. iii. 10. There
is here no mention of the good works of the regenerate, which however are
only the fruits of justification, ch. vi. viii. 2 ff.; Eph. ii. 10 al. Comp.
Philippi and Morison. — διὰ yap νόμου ἐπίγν. ἀμ. The law, when it places its
demands before man, produces in the latter his first proper recognition of his
moral incongruity with the will of God. ‘‘ With these words Paul strikes
at the deepest root of the matter,” Ewald. Respecting yap Calvin’s note is
sufficient : ‘‘ a contrario ratiocinatur. . . . quando ex eadem scatebra non
prodeunt vita et mors.” The propriety of the argument however rests on
the fact that the law does not at the same time supply the strength to con-
quer sin (viii. 3), but stops short at the point of bringing to cognition the
‘‘interiorem immunditiem ” which it forbids; ‘‘ hance judicat et accusat
coram Deo, non tollit,”” Melanchthon. It is different in the case of civil laws,
which are designed merely to do away with the externa scelera, and to judge
the works in and for themselves, xiii. 3 ff.

Vv. 21-30. [See Note XXXI. p. 149.] Paul has hitherto been proving that
all men are under sin, and guilty before God. This was the preparatory por-
tion of the detailed illustration of the theme set forth in ch. i. 17; for be-
fore anything else there had to be recognized the general necessity of a
δικαιοσύνη not founded on the law—as indeed such a legal righteousness has
shown itself to be impossible. Now however he exhibits this δικαιοσύνη pro-
vided from another souree—the righteousness of God which comes from
faith to all without distinction, to believing Jews and Gentiles. Hofmann
rejects this division, in consequence of his having erroneously taken προε-
χόμεϑα in ver. 9 as the utterance of the Christians. He thinks that the
Apostle only now comes to the conclusion, at which he has been aiming
ever since the fifth verse: as to what makes Christians, as distinguished
from others, assured of salvation.

Ver. 21.1 Νυνί is usually interpreted here as a pure adverb of time (‘‘ nostris
temporibus hac in parte felicissimis,” Grotius). So also Tholuck, Reiche,
Riickert, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Winzer, Reithmayr, Philippi, van
Hengel, Mehring, Th. Schott, and others. But since what precedes was
not given asa delineation of the past, there appears here not the contrast
between two periods, but that between two relations, the relation of depend-
ence on the law and the relation of independence on the law (διὰ νόμου. . . .
χωρὶς νόμου). Hence with Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, Fritzsche,
de Wette, Matthias, and Hofmann, we render : but in this state of the case.*
— χωρὶς νόμου] placed with full emphasis at the beginning as the opposite of
διὰ νόμου, belongs to πεῴφαν. Aptly rendered by Luther: ‘‘ without the ac-

1 See Winzer, Comm. in Rom. iii. 21-28, Part. p. 95; Ellendt, Zea. Soph. ΤΙ. p. 181.
Partic. Τ. and TI. 1829. Compe vil) 17: ἘΞ Cor: vy. 11. xis 18) Σ1Π[ 15:

2 See regarding this dialectic use of the al.,; 4 Macc. vi. 33, xiii.38. By Greek authors
νῦν Hartung, Partikell. II. Ὁ. 25; Baeuml. νυνί is not thus used, only νῦν.

CHAP. III., 22. 129
cessory aid of the law,” 1.6. so that in this revelation of the righteousness of
God the law is left out of account. Reiche’ joins it with δικαιοσ. : ‘‘ the
righteousness of God as being imparted to the believer without the law,
without the Mosaic law helping him thereto.” Compare also Winzer,
Klee, Mehring. But apart from the coactior constructio, with which Estius
already found fault, we may urge against this view the parallel of διὰ
νόμου, ver. 20, which words also do not belong to ἐπέγνωσις duapr. but to
the verb to be supplied. — πεφανέρωται] is made manifest and lies open to view,
so that it presents itself to the knowledge of every one ; the present of the
completed action, Heb. ix. 26. The expression itself presupposes the pre-
vious κρυπτόν (Col. 111. 3 f.; Mark iv. 22), the having been hidden, in accord-
ance with which the righteousness of God has not yet been the object of ex-
perimental perception. To men it was an unknown treasure. The mode of
the πεφανέρωται however consists in the δικαίοσ. Θεοῦ having become actwal,
having passed into historical reality, and having been made apparent, which
has been accomplished without mixing up the law as a co-operative factor

‘in the matter. —japrop. ὑπὸ τ. vou. Kk. τ. προφ.}] An accompanying charac-
teristic definition of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, so far as the latter is made manifest :
being witnessed, ete. If it is thus the case with regard to it, that in its πεφ-
avépwra it is attested by the witness of the law and the prophets, then this
precludes the misconception that the δικαιοσύνη revealed χωρὶς νόμου is oppos-
ed or foreign to the O. T., and consequently an innovation without a back-
ground in sacred history. Comp. xvi. 26 ; John v. 39. ‘‘ Novum testa-
mentum in vetere latet, vetus in novo patet,” Augustine. In this case we are
not to think of the moral requirements (Th. Schott), but of the collective Mes-
sianic types, promises and prophecies in the law and the prophets, in which is
also necessarily comprised the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as that which is necessary to
participation in the Messianic salvation. Comp. i. 2, 111. 2; Acts x. 43,
Xxviii. 23 ; Luke xxiv. 27 ; from the law, the testimony of Abraham, iv. 3 ff.
and the testimonies quoted in x. 6 ff. — Observe further that μαρτυρουμ. has
the emphasis, in contrast to γωρίς, not ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου (Bengel, Fritzsche and
others). We may add Bengel’s apt remark : ‘‘ Lex stricte (namely, in χωρὶς
νόμου) et late (in ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου) dicitur.”

Ver. 22. A righteousness of God, however, (mediated) through faith in Jesus
Christ. On δέ, with the repetition of the same idea, to be defined now
however more precisely, the δικαιοσυνη Θεοῦ; (not merely δικαιοσύνη, as Hof-
mann insists contrary to the words) ; comp. ix. 30. See on Phil. ii. 8. —
The genitive I. X. contains the object of faith* in accordance with prevail-

1 Following Augustine, de grat. Chr. 1, 8,
and de spir. et. lit. 9, Wolf, and others.

“fides, quae auctore Jesu Christo Deo
habetur” (Berlage). Against this view we

2 This view of the genitive is justly ad-
hered to by most expositors. It is with
πίστις aS With ἀγάπη, in which the object is
likewise expressed as well by the genitive
as by eis. Nevertheless, Scholten, Rauwen-
hoff, van Hengel, and Berlage (de formulae
Paulinae πίστις 1. Χριστοῦ signif., Lugd. B.
1856) have recently taken it to mean the

may decidedly urge the passages where the
genitive with πίστις is a thing or an abstract
idea (Phil. i. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Acts iii. 16 ;
Col. ii. 12); also the expression πίστις Θεοῦ
in Mark xi. 22, where the genitive must
necessarily be that of the object. Comp.
the classical expressions πίστις ϑεῶν and
the like. See besides Lipsius, Rechtfer-

130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ing usage (Mark xi. 22; Acts iii. 16; Gal. 11. 16, 20, iii: 22; Eph. iti. 12,
iv. 13; Phil. iii. 9; James ii.1). The article before διὰ rior. was not need-
ed for the simple reason that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is without it. Therefore, and
because the point at issue here was not the mode of becoming manifest, but
the specific characterizing of the righteousness itself that had become mani-
fest, neither διὰ rior. (Fritzsche, Tholuck) nor the following εἰς πάντας x.7.2.
(de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Winer, Mehring and others) is to be made
dependent on redavépwra. — εἰς πάντας x. ἐπὶ π. τ. πιστ.] scil. οὖσα. The
expression is an earnest and significant bringing into prominence of the uni-
versal character of this δικαιοσύνη διὰ rior. ᾽1. X.: which is for all, and upon
all who believe. Both prepositions denote the direction of aim, in which the
δικαιοσύνη presents itself, though with the special modification that under
the εἰς lies the notion of destination (not ‘‘ the immanent influx,” Reithmayr),
under the ἐπί that of extending itself over all. On the peculiar habit, which
the Apostle has, of setting forth a relation under several aspects by different
prepositional definitions of a single word, see Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 418] ;
compare generally Kiihner II. 1, p. 475 f. While recent expositors (includ-
‘ing Riickert, Reiche, Kollner, de Wette) have often arbitrarily disregarded
the distinction in sense between the two prepositions,” and have held both
merely as a strengthening of the idea a// (‘‘ for all, for all without exception,”
Koppe), the old interpreters, on the other hand, forced upon the εἰς and ἐπί
much that has nothing at all in common with the relation of the prepositions ;
e.g. that εἰς x. applies to the Jews and ἐπὶ 7. to the Gentiles.*—oi: yap ἐστι διαστ. |
Ground assigned for the πάντας τ. mist. ‘‘ For there is no distinction made,
according to which another way to the δικαιοσύνῃ Θεοῦ would stand open for
a portion of men, perchance for the Jews,” and that just for the reason that
(ver. 23) all have sinned, ete.

Ver. 929.. “Ἡμαρτον] [See Note XXXII. p. 149.] The sinning of every man
is presented as an historical fact of the past, whereby the sinful state is
produced. The perfect would designate it as a completed subsisting fact.
Calvin, moreover, properly remarks that according to Paul there is nulla
justitia ‘‘ nisi perfecta et absoluta,” and ‘‘ si verum esset, nos partim operibus
justificari, partim Dei gratia, non valeret hoc Pauliargumentum.” Luther
aptly observes : ‘‘ They are altogether sinners, etc., is the main article and
the central point of this Epistle and of the whole Scripture.” — καὶ torep. |
They have sinned, and in consequence of this they lack, there is wanting
to them, etc. This very present expression, as well as the present participle

tigungsl. Ὁ. 109 f.; Weiss, δὲδί. Theol. p. rison, p. 229 ff.) have already done. After

335.

1 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. 4, 25.

2 For in none of the similar passages are
the prepositions synonymous. See iii. 20,
xi. 86; Gal. i.1; Eph. iv. 6; Col. i. 16. See
also Matthias and Mehring in /oc. The lat-
ter, following out his connection πεφανέρ.,
explains: ‘‘ manifested fo all men and for
all believers.” But it is arbitrary to take
τοὺς πιστεύοντας as defining only the second
πάντας, aS Morus and Flatt (see also Mo-

the emphatic δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίέσ-
Tews the πιστεύειν is so much the specific
and thorough mark of the subjects, that
τοὺς πιστεύοντας must define the πάντας in
both instances.

3 Thus Theodoret, Oecumenius, and many
others, who have been followed by Bengel,
Bohme, and Jatho (and conversely by Mat-
thias, who explains ἐκ and eis in i. 17 in the
same way).

CHAP. III., 23. ; 131

δικαιούμενοι, Ought to have kept Hofmann from understanding πάντες of all
believers ; for in their case that ὑστερεῖσϑαι no longer applies (v. 1 f., viii. 1 @/.),
and they are not δικαιούμενοι but δικαιωϑέντες ; but, as becoming believers, they
would not yet be πιστεύοντες. --- τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ] The genitive with ὑστερεῖσϑαι
(Diod. Sic. xviii. 71 ; Joseph. Antt. xv. 6, 7) determines for the latter the sense
of destitui. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237. Comp. on 1 Cor. i. 7. They lack
the honour which God gives,’ they are destitute of the being honoured by
God, which would be the case, if the ἥμαρτον did not occur ; in that
case they would possess the good pleasure of God, and this, regarded
as honour, which they would have to enjoy from God : the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Comp. ii. 29 ; John xii. 43, compared withv. 44. Kd6llner’s objection to this
view, which first offers itself, of τ. Θεοῦ as the genitive auctoris, which is
also held by Piscator, Hammond, Grotius, Fritzsche, Reiche, de Wette,
Tholuck, and others, following Chrysostom (comp. Philippi), that it is not
the fault of men if they should not have an honour, which proceeds from God,
is of no weight ; since it certainly is the fault of men, if they render it im-
possible for a holy God to give them the honour which proceeds from Him.
Moreover, Kéllner’s own explanation : honour before God (quite so also Cal-
vin ; and comp. Philippi), which is said according to the analogy of human
relations, in point of fact quite coincides with the above view, since in fact
honour before God, or with God (Winzer), is nothing else than the honour
that accrues to us from God’s judgment. Comp. Calvin : ‘‘ita nos ab hu-
mani theatri plausu ad tribunal coeleste vocat.”” Accordingly, the genitive
is here all the less to be interpreted coram, since in no other passage (and.
especially not in δικαίοσ. Θεοῦ, see on i. 17) is there any necessity for this
interpretation. This last consideration may also be urged against the inter-
pretation of others : gloriatio coram Deo; ‘‘non habent, unde coram Deo
glorientur,” Estius. So Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, Wolf, Koppe, Rosen-
miiller, Reithmayr, and others. It is decisive against this view that in all
passages where Paul wished to express gloriatio, he knew how to employ
the proper word, καύχησις (ver. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 14, viii. 24 al). Others,
again, following Oecumenius (Chrysostom and Theophylact express them-
selves too indefinitely, and Theodoret is altogether silent on the. matter),
explain the δόξα τ. Θεοῦ to mean the glory of eternal life, in so far as God
either has destined it for man (Gléckler), or confers it upon him (Boéhme,
comp. Morison) ; 07 in so far as it consists in partaking in the glory of God
(Beza, comp. Bengel and Baumgarten-Crusius). Mehring allows a choice
between the two last definitions of the sense. But the following δικαιούμενοι
proves that the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ cannot in reality be anything essentially dif-
ferent from the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and cannot be merely future, Utterly erro-
neous, finally, is the view of Chemnitz, Flacius, Sebastian Schmid, Calovius,”

1The genitive τ. Θεοῦ cannot, without God,” i.e. the glory of personal holiness.
arbitrariness, be explained otherwise than 2 He takes δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ as “‘ gloria homini
was done in the case of δικαιοσύνη τ. Θεοῦ. a Deo concessa in creatione ;” this gloria
In consequence of his erroneous exposition having been the divine image, which we
“of δικαίοσ. τ. Θεοῦ (see on i. 17), Matthias forfeited after the fall.
understands here “ glory such as is that of

132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Hasaeus, Alting, Carpzov, Ernesti, recently revived by Riickert, Olshausen,
. and Mangold, that the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ is the image of God ; ““α godlike δόξα,"
as Riickert puts it, and thus gets rid of the objection that δόξα is not synon-
ymous with εἰκών. But how arbitrarily is the relation of the genitive thus
defined, altogether without the precedent of a similar usage (2 Cor. xi. 2 is
not a case in point)! That the idea of the image of God is not suggested
by anything in the connection is self-evident, since, as the subsequent
δικαιούμενοι x.T.2. abundantly shows, it is the idea of the want of righteous-
ness that is under discussion. Hofmann and Ewald have explained it in the
same way as Riickert, though they take the genitive more accurately (a δόξα
such as God Himself possesses). The latter’ understands ‘‘the glory of
God which man indeed has by creation, Ps. viii. 8, but which by sin he
may lose for time and eternity, and has now lost.” Compare Hofmann:
‘¢ Whatsoever is of God has a share, after the manner of a creature, in the
glory of God. If this therefore be not found in man, the reason is that he
has forfeited the relation to God in which he was created.” - But even apart
from the fact that such a participation in the glory of God has been lost
already through the fall (v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22), and not for the first time
through the individual ἥμαρτον here meant, it is decisive against this exposi-
tion that the participation in the divine δόξα nowhere appears as an original
blessing that has fallen into abeyance, but always as something to be conferred
only at the Parousia (v. 2 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12) ; as the συνδοξασϑῆναι with Christ
(vili. 17 f.; Col. 111. 4) ; as the glorious κληρονομία of God (comp. also 2
Tim. iv. 8 ; 1 Pet. v. 4); and consequently as the new blessing of the future
αἰών (1 Cor. ii. 9). That is also the proleptic ἐδόξασε in viii. 30, which how-
ever would be foreign to the present connection.

Ver. 24. Δικαιούμενοι] [See Note XXXIII. p. 149.] does not stand for the
finite tense (as even Riickert and Reiche, following Erasmus, Calvin and
Melanchthon, think) ; nor is, with Ewald, ver. 23 to be treated as a paren-
thesis, so that the discourse from the accusative im ver. 22 should now
resolve itself more freely into the nominative, which would be unnecessarily
harsh. But the participle introduces the accompanying relation, which here
comes into view with the ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ, namely, that of the
mode of their δικαίωσις : so that, in that state of destitution, they receive justi-
Jication in the way of gift. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘repente sic panditur
scena amoenior.” The participle is not even to be resolved into καὶ δικαιοῦν-
ται (Peshito, Luther, Fritzsche), but the relation of becoming justified is
to be left in the dependence on the want of the δόξα Θεοῦ, in which it is con-
ceived and expressed.*— δωρεάν] gratuitously (comp. v. 17, and on the
adverb in this sense Polyb. xviii. 17, 7; 1 Macc. x. 33; Matt. x. 8; 2 Thess.
iit. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7) they are placed in the relation of righteousness, so that

1 Similarly already Melanchthon: ‘ gloria
Dei, i.e. luce Dei fulgente in natura incor-

quam Deus approbat.”
2 Against the Osiandrian misinterpreta-

rupta, seu ipso Deo carent, ostendente se et
accendente ardentem dilectionem et alios
motus legi congruentes sine ullo peccato.”’
Previously (1540) he had explained : ‘‘ gloria,

tions in their old and new forms see Me-
lanchthon, Znarr. on ver. 21; Kahnis, Dogm.
I. p. 599 ff.; and also Philippi, Glaubenslehré,
IV. 2, p. 247 ff.

CHAP. III., 25. 133
this is not anyhow the result of their own performance ; comp. Eph. ii. 8 ;
Tit. iii. ὅ. --- τῇ αὐτοῦ yap. διὰ τῆς ἀπολ. τῆς ἐν X. ᾽1.1 in virtue of His grace .
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This redemption is that which
Jorms the medium of the justification of man taking place gratuitously
through the grace of God. By the position of the words τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι,
the divine grace, is, in harmony with the notion of δωρεάν, emphasized pre-
cisely as the divine, opposed to all human co-operation ; comp. Eph. ii. 8.
In ἀπολύτρωσις * the special idea of ransoming (comp. on Eph. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. vi.
20 ; Gal. iii. 13) is not to be changed into the general one of the Messianic
liberation (vill. 23 ; Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. i. 14, iv. 30; and see Ritschl in
the Jahrb. 7. ἃ. Theol. 1863, p. 512) ; for the λύτρον or ἀντίλυτρον (Matt. xx.
28 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6) which Christ rendered, to procure for all believers remis-
sion of guilt and the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, was His blood, which was the atoning’
sacrificial blood, and so as equivalent accomplished the forgiveness of sins,
2.6. the essence of the ἀπολύτρωσις. See ver. 25; Eph.i. 7; Col. i. 14;
Heb. ix. 15 ; comp. on Matt. xx. 28; 1 Cor. vi..20 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor.
v. 21. Liberation from the sin-prineiple (from its dominion) is not the
essence of the ἀπολύτρωσις itself,* but its consequence through the Spirit, if it
is appropriated in faith (viii. 3). Every mode of conception, which refers
redemption and the forgiveness of sins not to a real atonement through the
death of Christ, but subjectively to the dying and reviving with Him guar-
anteed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch, Hofmann,
and others, with various modifications), is opposed to the N. T.—a mixing
up of justification and sanctification. * — ἐν X. ’Ιησοῦ] 1.6. contained and rest-
ing in Him, in His person that has appeared as the Messiah (hence the
Χριστῷ is placed first), To what extent, is shown in ver. 25.—Observe
further that justification, the causa efficiens of which is the divine grace (rq
αὐτοῦ χάριτι), is here represented as obtained by means of the ἀπολύτρωσις,
but in ver. 22 as obtained by means of faith, namely, in the one case object-
ively and in the other subjectively (comp. ver. 25). But even in ver. 22 the
objective element was indicated in πίστ.᾽Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and in ver. 24 f.
both elements are more particularly explained.

Ver. 25.1— dv προέϑεζο x.t.4.| whom God has openly set forth for Himself.*
This signification, familiar from the Greek usage,® is decidedly to be
adopted on account of the correlation with εἰς ἔνδειξιν κ.τ.λ. (Vulgate, Pela-
gius, Luther, Beza, Bengel and others ; also Riickert, de Wette, Philippi,

1 Comp. Plut. Pomp. 24, Dem. 159, 15.
2 Lipsius, Pechtfertiqungsl. p. 147 f.
3 Comp. on ver. 26; also Ernesti, Hthik ἃ.

up to view as ἱλαστήριον. In Greek authors
the word προτίϑεσϑαι is specially often used
to express the exhibition of dead bodies

Ap. P.p.-27 f.

4 See on ver. 25f. Ritschl,in the Jahrb. f.
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 500 ff.; Pfleiderer in
Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 177 ff.; the
critical comparison of the various explana-
tions in Morison, p. 268 ff.

§ Which has been done by the erwcifixion.
Compare the discourse of Jesus where
He compares Himself with the serpent of
Moses, John iii. Christ has been thus hed

(Kriiger on Thue. ii. 34, 1; Stallbaum, ad
Plat. Phaed. p. 115 E.). Weare not to sup-
pose however that ¢his usage influenced
the Apostle in his choice of the word, since
he had Christ before his eyes, not as a dead
body, but as shedding His blood and dying.

ὁ Herod. iii. 148, vi. 21; Plat. Phaed. Ὁ. 115
E; Eur. Alc. 667 ; Thue. ii. 84, 1, 64, 3; Dem.
1071, 1; Herodian, viii. 6, 5; also in the
xXx.

184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Tholuck, Hofmann and Morison) ; and not the equally classic signification :
to propose to oneself, adopted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Toletus, Pareus, de Dieu, Elsner, Heumann, Bohme, Flatt and Fritzsche
(i. 13; Eph. i. 9; 3 Mace. 11. 27): ‘‘ quem esse voluit Deus piaculare sacri-
ficium,” Fritzsche.’ In that case an infinitive must have been required ;
and it was with the publicity of the divine act before the whole world that
the Apostle was here concerned, as he has already indicated by redavépwra
in ver. 21. Matthias explains it : whom He caused to be openly made known,
to be preached. But the classical use of προτίϑημι, in the active and middle,
in the sense of promulgare is here foreign, since it refers to the summoning .
or proclamation of assemblies * or to the promulgation of laws. Besides the
ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης Of God rests, in fact, not on the preaching of the atoner,
but on the work of atonement itself, which God accomplished by the προέ-
Seto K.T.A. — God’s own participation therein (for it was His ἱλαστήριον, willed
and instituted by Himself) which is expressed by the middle, is placed be-
yond question by the εἰς ἔνδειξιν κ.τ.λ., and decisively excludes Hofmann’s
conception of the death of Christ as a befalling. Compare on ver. 26, —
ἱλαστήριον] is the neuter of the adjective ἱλαστήριος, used as a substantive, and
hence means simply erpiatorium in general, without the word itself convey-
ing the more concrete definition of its sense. The latter is supplied by the
context. Thus, for example, in the LXX. (in the older profane Greek the
word does not occur) the lid of the ark of the covénant, the Kapporeth, as
the propitiatorium operculum, is called τὸ ἱλαστήριον (see below), which des-
ignation has become technical, and in Ex. xxv. 17 and xxxvii. 6 receives
its more precise definition by the addition of ἐπίϑεμα. They also designate
the ledge (choir) of the altar for burnt offerings, the WY, (Ez. xliii. 15, 17,
20) in the same way, because this place also was, through the blood of rec-
onciliation with which it was sprinkled, and generally as, an altar-place,
a place of atonement. When they render D3 in Amos ix. 1 (knob) by ἱλασ-
τήριον, it is probable that they read N33. See generally Schleusner, Thes.
Ill. p. 108 f. The word in the sense of offerings of atonement does not oc-
cur in the LXX., though it is so used by other writers, so that it may be
more specially defined by ἱερόν or ϑῦμα.5 Even in our passage the context |
makes the notion of an atoning sacrifice (comp. Lev. xvii. 11) sufficiently
clear by ἐν τ. αὐτοῦ αἵματι ; compare Pfleiderer 1.6. p. 180. The interpreta-

1.Ewald has in the translation predestined,
but in the explanation exhibited. Van Hen-
gel declares for the latter.

2 Soph. Ant. 160, and Hermann in loc.;
Lucian, Vecyom. 19, and Hemsterhuis in 100.»
Dion. Hal. vi. 15 a/.; see Schoem. Comit. Ὁ.
104; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 266 f.

3 Thus in Dio Chrys. Orat. xi. 1, p. 355
Reiske : ἱλαστήριον ᾿Αχαιοὶ τῇ ᾿Αϑηνᾷ τῇ Ἰλιάδι,
where a votive gift bears this inscription,
and is thereby indicated as an offering of
atonement, as indeed votive gifts generally
fall under the wider idea of offerings
(Ewald, Alterth. Ὁ. 96; Hermann, gottesd.

Alterth. § 25, 1); again in Nonnus, Dionys.
xiii. p. 883: ἱλαστήρια (the true reading in-
stead of ἱκαστήρια) Topyots. 4 Mace. xvii.
22: διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐκείνων καὶ τοῦ
ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ [The article is, critically, un-
certain; but at all events the blood is con-
ceived as atoning sacrifice-blood ; comp.
ver. 19.] ϑανάτου αὐτῶν. Hesych.: ἱλαστήριον"
καϑάρσιον. Comp. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 487,
where λωφήϊα ἱερά is explained by ἐξιλασ-
τήρια ; also the corresponding expressions
for sacrifices, σωτήριον (Xen. Anabd. ili. 2, 93
v. 1,1; LXX. Ex. xx. 24); καϑάρσιον (Herod.
i. 35; Aeschin. p. 4, 10) ; καϑαρτήριον (Poll. 1.

CHAP! ΤΙ. 20: 135
tion expiatory sacrifice is adopted by Chrysostom (who at least represents
the ἱλαστήρ. of Christ as the antitype of the animal offerings), Clericus, Bos,
Elsner, Kypke, and others, including Koppe, Flatt, Klee, Reiche, de Wette,
K6lner, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Messner and Ewald ; Weiss (bibl. Theol. p.
324) is in doubt between this and the following explanation.’ Others, as
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Usteri and Gléckler, keep with the Vulgate
( propitiationem) and Castalio (placamentum), to the general rendering : means
of propitiation. So also Hofmann (comp. Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 338 f.), com-
paring specially 1 John iv. 10, and σωτήριον in Luke ii. 30; and Rich.
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 84 ff. But this, after the προέϑετο which points
to a definite public appearance, is an abstract idea inappropriate to it (as
‘* propitiation”), especially seeing that év . . αἵματι belongs to προέϑετο,
and seeing that the view of the death of Jesus as the concrete propitiatory
offering was deeply impressed on and vividly present to the Christian con-
sciousness (Eph. v. 2; 1 Cor. v. 7 ; Heb. ix. 14, 28; 1 Pet. i. 19; Johni.
29, xvii. 19 al.). Origen, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Piscator,
Pareus, Hammond, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others,’ have
rendered ἱλαστήριον in quite a special sense, namely, as referring to the can-
opy-shaped cover suspended over the ark of the covenant (see Ewald, Alterth.
p. 164 ff.), on which, as the seat of Jehovah’s throne, the blood of the sac-
rifice was sprinkled by the high priest on the great day of atonement (Ex.
xxv. 22 ; Num. vii. 89; Lev. xvi. 13 ff. ;? and which therefore, regarded as
the vehicle of the divine grace,‘ typified Christ as the atoner.® That the
Kapporeth was termed ἱλαστήριον is not only certain from the LXX.° (Ex.
xxv. 18, 19, 20, xxxi. 7 al.), but also from Heb. ix. 5, and Philo (οὐδ. Mos.
p- 668, Dand # ; de profug. p. 465 A), who expressly represents the covering
of the ark as a symbol of the ἵλεω δυνάμεως of God. Compare also Joseph.

32); χαριστήριον (Xen. Cyr. iv. 1,2; Polyb.
xxi. 1, 2); εὐχαριστήριον (Polyb. v. 14, 8).
Compare also such expressions as ἐπινίκια
Sve; and see generally Schaefer, ad Bos.
Fill. p. 191 ff.

1 Hstius also explains victimam . .. propi-
tiatoriam, but yet takes ἱλαστ, as masculine.
It was already taken as masculine (propitia-
tor) in the Syriac (compare the reading
propitiatorem in the Vulgate) by Thomas
Aquinas and others; also Erasmus (in his
translation), Melanchthon and Vatablus ;
more recently also by Vater, Schrader,
Reithmayr and van Hengel. But to this it
may be objected that there is no example
of ἱλαστήριος used with reference to persons.
This remark also applies against Mehring,
who interprets powenful for atonement.
Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 584, and similarly Man-
gold properly retain the rendering . expia-
tory offering ; and even Morison recognizes
the sacrificial conception of the ‘‘ propitia-
tory,” although like Mehring he abides in
substance by the idea of the adjective.

2 Also Olshausen, Tholuck (ed. 5), Philippi,

Umbreit, Jatho, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 247, and altkathol.
Kirche, p. 85; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p.
273; Delitzsch on Heb. p. 719, and in the il-
lustrations to his Hebrew translation, p. 79;
Miarcker, and others.

3 Keil, Arch. I. § 84, and generally Lund,
Jiid. Heiligth. ed. Wolf, p. 37 ff.

4See Bahr, Symbolik, 1. p. 387 ff ; Hengs-
tenberg, Awthent. des Pentateuches, Il. p.
642; Schulz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 205. ,

5 So also Funke, in the Stud. τι. AKvrit. 1842,
p. 214 f. The old writers, and before them
the Fathers, have in some instances very
far-fetched points of comparison. Calo-
vius, ¢.g., specifies five: (1) quoad causam
efficientem ; (2) quoad materiam (gold and
not perishable wood—divine and human
nature); (3) quoad numerum (only one) ;
(4) quoad objectum (all); (5) quoad usum
et finem.

6 The LXX. derived the word Kapporeth,
in view of the idea which it represented,
from 455, condonavit. Comp. also the Vul-
gate (‘‘ expiatorium”’).

136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Antt. iii. 6, 5. There is consequently nothing to be urged against this expla-
nation, either as respects the wsws loquendi or as respects the idea, in accord-
ance with which Christ, the bearer of the divine glory and grace, sprinkled
with His own sacrificial blood, would be regarded as the antitype of the
Kapporeth. But we may urge against it : (1) that τὸ ἱλαστήρ. does not stand
with the article, as in the Sept. and Heb. ix. 5, although Christ was to be des-
ignated as the realized idea of the definite and in fact singly existing 1153
(τὸ ἀληϑινὸν ἱλαστήριον, Theodoret) ; (2) that even though the term ἱλαστήριον,
as applied to the cover of the ark, was certainly familiar to the readers from
its use by the LXX., nevertheless this name, in its application to Christ,
would come in here quite abruptly, without anything in the context prepar-
ing the way for it or leading to it ; (8) that προέϑετο would in that case be
inappropriate, because the ark of the covenant, in the Holy of Holies, was
removed from the view of the people ; (4) that, if Christ were really thought
of here as D195, the following εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ would be
inappropriate, since the 0153 must have appeared rather as the ἔνδειξις of
the divine grace (comp. Heb. iv. 16) ; (5) and lastly, that the conception of
Christ as the antitype of the cover of the ark is found nowhere else in the
whole N. T., although there was frequent opportunity for such expression ;
and it is therefore to be assumed that it did not belong to the apostolic modes
of viewing and describing the atoning work of Christ./ Moreover, if it is ob-
jected that this interpretation is unsuitable, because Christ, who shed His own
blood, could not be the cover of the ark sprinkled with foreign blood, it ison
the other hand to be remembered that the Crucified One sprinkled with His
own blood might be regarded as the cover of the ark with the same propri-
ety as Christ offering His own blood is regarded in the Epistle to the He-
brews as High Priest. If, on the other side, it is objected to the interpre-
tation expiatory offering (see Philippi), that it does not suit προέϑετο because
Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice to God, but God did not present Him
as such to humanity, the objection is untenable, since the idea that God
has given Christ to death pervades the whole N. T.—not that God has there-
by offered Christ as a sacrifice, which is nowhere asserted, but that He has
set forth before the eyes of the universe Him who is surrendered to the world
by the very fact of His offering Himself as a sacrifice in obedience to the
Father’s counsel, as such actually and publicly, namely, on the cross. An
exhibition through preaching (as Philippi objects) is not to be thought of,
but rather the divine act of redemption which took place through the sacri-
ficial death on Golgotha. — διὰ τῆς πίστεως] may be connected either with
προέϑετο (Philippi, following older writers) or with ἱλαστήριον (Riickert,
Matthias, Ewald, Hofmann, Morison, and older expositors). The latter is
the right construction, since faith, as laying hold of the propitiation, is the
very thing by which the ἱλαστήριον set forth becomes subjectively effective ;
but not that whereby the setting forth itself, which was an objective fact
independent of faith, has been accomplished. Hence: as ὦ sacrifice pro-

Φ.
1 Even had no one believed on the Cruci- view of the divine: πρόγνωσις could not
fied One—a contingency indeed, which in really occur—He would still have been set

CHAP. III., 25. 137
ducing the ἱλάσκεσϑαι through faith. Without faith the ἱλαστήριον would not
be actually and in result, what it is in itself ; for it does not reconcile the
unbeliever. —iv τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι] belongs to προέϑετο «.7.A. God has set
forth Christ as an effectual expiatory offering through faith by means of His

lUlood ; 1.6. in that He caused Him to shed His blood, in which lay objectively

the strength of the atonement. Observe the position of αὐτοῦ : “quem

| proposuit ipsius sanguine.” Kriiger, ὃ 47, 9, 12. Comp. xi. 11 ; Tit. iii.
5; 1 Thess. ii. 19 ; Heb. ii. 4 αἱ. Comp. ver. 24. Still ἐν τ. air. αἷμ. is not
to be joined with ἱλαστήριον in such a way as to make it the parallel of
διὰ τ. πίστ. (Wolf, Schrader, Kéllner, Reithmayr, Matthias, Mehring, Hof-
mann, Mangold, and others) ; for εἰς ἔνδειξιν «7.2. requires that ἐν τ. air. αἵμ.
shall be the element defining more closely the divine act of the προέϑετο κ.τ.λ.,
by which the divine righteousness. is apparent ; wherefore also ἐν. τ. abt aip.
is placed immediately before εἰς ἔνδειξιν «.7.2., and not before ἱλαστήριον
(against Hofmann’s objection). Other writers again erroneously make ἐν
νον νον, αἵματι dependent on πίστεως (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Seb. Schmid, and
others ; also Koppe, Klee, Flatt, Olshausen, Tholuck, Winzer, and Morison),
joining διὰ τ. rior. likewise to ἱλαστήριον : through faith on His blood. In that
case ἐν would not be equivalent to εἰς, but would indicate the basis of faith
(see on Gal. iii. 26) ; nor can the absence of the article after πίστ. be urged
against this rendering (see on Gal. 1.6.}.: but the ἐν τῷ air. αἵμ. becomes in
this connection much too subordinate a point. Just by means of the shedding
of His blood was the setting forth of Christ for a propitiatory offering accom-
plished ; in order that through this utmost, highest, and holiest sacrifice of-
fered for the satisfaction of the divine justice—through the blood of Christ—
that justice might be brought to light and demonstrated. From this connec-
tion also we may easily understand why ἐν τῷ air. αἵμ., which moreover, fol-
lowing ἱλαστήριον, was a matter of course, is added at all ; though in itself un-
necessary and self-evident, it is added with all the more weight, and in fact
with solemn emphasis. For just in the blood of Christ, which God has not
spared, lies the proof of His righteousness, which He has exhibited through
the setting forth of Christ as an expiatory sacrifice ; that shed blood has at
once satisfied His justice, and demonstrated it before the whole world.
On the atoning, actually sin-effacing power of the blood of Christ, according
to the fundamental idea of Lev. xvii. 11 (compare Heb. ix. 22), see v. 9 ;
Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Acts xx. 28; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; Rev. v. 9 al. ; 2 Cor.
v. 14, 21; Gal. iii. 18 al. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. Ὁ. 270 ff., 584 f.
Reiche considers that διὰ τῆς riot. should be coupled with δικαιούμ., and
ὃν. - - - ἱλαστ. should be a parenthesis, whilst ἐν τ. air. αἷμ. is to be co-

forth as a propitiatory offering, though this
offering would not have subjectively ben-
efited any one.

1This ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι secures at all
events to the Apostle’s utterance the con-
ception of a sacrifice atoning, ὁ.6. doing
away the guilt, whichever of the existing
explanations of the word ἱλαστήριον We may
adopt. This also applies against Rich.

Schmidt 7.c., according to whom (comp.
Sabatier, p. 262 f.) the establishment of the
ἱλαστήριον consisted in God actually passing
sentence on sin itself in the flesh of His
Son, and wholly abolishing it as an object-
ive power exercising dominion over hu-
manity—consequently in the destruction of
the sin principle. Regarding viii. 3 see on
that passage.

138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ordinated with the διὰ τ. rior. But by this expedient the discourse is only

rendered clumsy and overladen. —ei¢ ἔνδειξ. τ. dix. αὐτοῦ] purpose of God in

the rpoédero . The δικαιοσύνη is righteousness, as is required by

the context (διὰ τ. πάρεσιν . . . . ἐν TH ἀνοχῇ τ. Θεοῦ), not : truth (Ambro-

siaster, Beza, Turretin, Hammond, Locke, Béhme), or goodness (Theodoret,

Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Reiche, also Tittmann,

Synon. p. 185)—significations which the word never bears. It does not

even indicate the holiness (Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Klaiber, Neander, Gurlitt

in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 975 ; Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 146 ff.) ;

or the righteousness, including grace (Ritschl) ; or generally the Divine moral
order of justice (Morison) ; or the self-equality ef God in His bearing (Hof-
mann) ; but in the strict sense the opposite of ἄδικος in ver. 5, the judicial
(more precisely, the punitive) righteousness (comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde.

I. p. 169 ff.), which had to find its holy satisfaction, but received that sat-
isfaction in the propitiatory offering of Christ, and is thereby practically.
demonstrated and exhibited. On ἔνδειξις, in the sense of practical proof,

comp. 2 Cor. viii. 24, and on εἰς Eph. ii. 7: Following ver.

26, Chrysostom and others, including Krehl and Baumgarten-Crusius, take
it unsatisfactorily as justifying righteousness. Anselm, Luther, Elsner,

Wolf, and others, also Usteri, Winzer, van Hengel, and Mangold, hold that
it is, as in ver. 21, the righteousness, that God gives. On the other hand,

see the immediately following εἰς... . δίκαιον. ---- διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν K.T.A.] on
account of the passing by of sins that had previously taken place, i.e. because He
had allowed the pre-Christian sins to go without punishment, whereby His
righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured,’ and therefore came to
need an ἔνδειξις for men.? Thus the atonement accomplished in Christ be-
came the ‘‘ divine Theodicée for the past history of the world” (Tholuck),

and, in view of this ἔνδειξις, that πάρεσις ceases to be an enigma. — πάρεσις,

which occurs only here in the N. T.* ; erroneously explained by Chrysostom
as equivalent to νέκρωσις, is distinguished from ἄφεσις in so far as the omis-
sion of punishment is conceived in πάρεσις as a letting pass (ὑπεριδών, Acts
xvii. 80 ; comp. xiv. 16), in ἄφεσις (Eph. i. 7; Col. 1. 14) as a letting free.

Since Paul, according to Acts 1.6., regarded the non-punishment of pre-
Christian sins as an ‘‘ overlooking” (comp. Wisd. xi. 28), we must consider
the peculiar expression, πάρεσις, here as purposely chosen. Comp. παριέναι,

Ecclus. xxiii. 2. If he had written ἄφεσις, the idea would be, that God,

instead of retaining those sins in their category of guilt (comp. John xx.

23), had let them free, i.e. had forgiven them.* He has not forgiven

do 6 Wien

ἵνα ἐνδείξηται.

1 Compare J. Miiller, v. α. Stinde, 1. p. 352,
ed, 5.

2 The explanation that “ διά here indicates
that, whereby the δικαιοσύνη manifests it-
self ’’ (Reiche ; so also Benecke, Koppe, and
older expositors) is incorrect, just because
Paulin all cases (even in viii. 1land Gal. iv.
13) makes a sharp distinction between διά
with the accusative and with the genitive.
This interpretation has arisen from the er-

roneous conception of δικαιοσύνη (as good-
ness or truth).

3 See however Dionys. Hal. vii. 37 ; Phalar.
Epist. 114; Xen. de praef. eg. 7, 10; and
Fritzsche én doc. ; Loesner, p. 249.

4 Τῇ ἄφεσις the guilt and punishment are
cancelled ; in πάρεσις both are tacitly or ex-
pressly left undealt with, but in their case
it may be said that ‘‘ométtance is not acquit-
tance.” For the idea of forgiveness ἄφεσις

“OMAP. ΠῚ 2D: 139
them, however, but only let them go unpunished (comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 10),
neglevit. The wrath of God, which nevertheless frequently burst forth
(comp. i. 17 ff.) in the ages before Christ over Jews and Gentiles (for Paul,
in his perfectly general expressions, has not merely the former in view),
was not an adequate recompense counterbalancing the sin, and even in-
creased it (i. 24 ff.) ; so that God’s attitude to the sin of the time before
Christ, so long as it was not deleted either by an adequate punishment, or
by atonement, appears on the whole.as a letting pass (comp. Acts xiv. 16) and
overlooking. As the correlative of πάρεσις, there is afterwards appropriately
named ἀνοχή (comp. 11. 4), not χάρις, for the latter would correspond to
ἄφεσις, Eph. i. 7. —The pre-Christian sins are not those of individuals prior
to their conversion (Mehring and earlier expositors), but the sum of the
sins of the world before Christ. The ἱλαστήριον of Christ is the epoch and
turning-point in the world’s history (comp. Acts xvii. 30, xiv. 16.) —év τῇ
ἀνοχῇ τ. Θεοῦ] in virtue of the forbearance (tolerance, comp. ii. 4) ef God,?
contains the ground which is the motive of the πάρεσις. It is not to be at-
tached to προγεγ. (Oecumenius, Luther, and many others ; also Riickert,
Gurlitt, Ewald, van Hengel, Ritschl, and Hofmann), which would yield the
sense with or ‘‘during the forbearance of God.” Against this view we may
urge the very circumstance that the time when the sins referred to took
place is already specified by προγεγονότων, and expressed in a way simply
and fully corresponding with the contrast of the viv καιρός that follows, as
well as the special pertinent reason, that our mode of connecting ἐν τ. ἀνογῇ
τ. Θ. with διὰ τ. πάρεσιν x.t.A. brings out more palpably the antithetical re-
lation of this πάρεσις to the divine δικαιοσύνη. Moreover, as avoy4 is a moral
attribute, the temporal conception of év is neither indicated nor appropriate.
What is indicated and appropriate is simply the use, so common, of ἐν in
the sense of the ethical ground. Reiche connects ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τ. Θεοῦ with
εἰς évd. τ. δικ. αὐτ., Making it co-ordinate with the διὰ. ‘the
δικαιοσύνη Showed itself positively in the forgiveness of sins, negatively in
the postponement of judgment.” Incorrect, on account of the erroneous
explanation of διά and δικαιοσ. thus necessitated.—Our whole interpretation
of the passage from διὰ τ. πάρεσιν to Θεοῦ is not at variance (as Usteri thinks)
with Heb. ix. 15 ; for, if God has allowed pre-Christian sins to pass, and
then has exhibited the atoning sacrifice of Christ in proof of His righteous-
ness, the death of Christ must necessarily be the λύτρον for the transgres-
sions committed under the old covenant, but passed over for the time being.
But there is nothing in our passage to warrant the reference to the sins of
the people of Jsrael, as in Heb. 1.6. (in opposition to Philippi).

-
- AapT.:

and ἀφιέναι alone form the standing mode
of expression in the N. T. And beyond
doubt (in opposition to the view of Luther
and others, and recently Mangold) Paul
would here have used this form, had he in-
tended to convey that idea. The πάρεσις is
intermediate between pardon and punish-
ment. Compare Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D.
Th. 1863, p. 501.

1 Paul writes Θεοῦ, not again αὐτοῦ, be-
cause he utters the διὰ τὴν mapeow....
Θεοῦ from his own standpoint, so that the
subject is presented objectively. Comp. Xen.
Anab.i. 9,15. But even apart from this the
repetition of the noun instead of the pro-
noun is of very frequent occurrence in all
Greek authors, and also in the N. T. (Winer,
p. 186 [E. T. 144]).

140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Ver. 26. Πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν] Resumption of the εἰς ἔνδειξιν in ver. 25, and
that without the δέ, ver. 22 (comp. on Luke i. 71); while εἰς is exchanged
for the equivalent πρός unintentionally, as Paul in ver. 30, and also frequent-
ly elsewhere (comp. on Eph. i. 7 and Gal. ii. 16) changes the prepositions.’
The article, however (see the critical notes), serves to set forth the definite,
historically given ἔνδειξις, which is in accord with the progress of the repre-
sentation ; for Paul desires to add now with corresponding emphasis the
historical element ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ not previously mentioned. The resumption
is in itself so obvious, and also in such entire harmony with the emphasis
laid upon the ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ as the chief point, that for this very
reason the interpretation of Riickert and Gurlitt (comp. Beza), which joins
πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν κιτ.. With διὰ τ. πάρεσιν. . . . Θεοῦ, and takes it as the
aim of the πάρεσις or the ἀνοχή (Baumgarten-Crusius ; comp. Hofmann and
Th. Schott), at once falls to the ground. Mehring, rendering πρός in ref-
erence to or in view of, understands the δικαιοσύνη in ver. 26 to mean imputed
righteousness, and finds the ἔνδειξις of the latter, ver. 26, in the resurrection
of Jesus ; but a decisive objection to his view is that Paul throughout gives
no hint whatever that his expressions in ver. 26 are to be taken in any other
sense than in ver. 25 ; and a reference to the resurrection in particular is
here quite out of place ; the passage goes not beyond the atoning death of
Christ. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι «.7.2. Cannot stand in an epexegetical relation to the
previous εἰς ἔνδειξεν x.7.2. because that ἔνδειξις has in fact already been doubly
expressed, but now the further element καὶ δικαιοῦντα «.t.A. is added, which
first brings into full view the teleology of the ἱλαστήριον. εἰς τὸ εἶναι x.7.A. 18
therefore the definition presenting the final aim of the whole affirmation
from ὃν προέϑετο to καιρῷ. It is its keystone : that He may be just and justi-
Sying the believers, which is to be taken as the intended result (comp. on ver.
4): in order that, through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, arranged in this way and
for this ἔνδειξις, He may manifest Himself as One who is Himself righteous,
and who makes the believer righteous (comp. ἱλαστήρ. διὰ τ. πίστεως, ver. 25).
He desires to be both, the one not without the other. The εἶναι however is
the being in the appearance corresponding to it. The ‘ estimation of the
moral public” (Morison) only ensues as the consequence of this. Regarding
Tov éx πίστ. comp. On οἱ ἐξ ἐριϑείας, ii. 8. The αὐτόν however has not the
force of ipse or even alone (Luther), seeing it is the subject of the two predi-
cations δίκαιον κ. δικαιοῦντα ; but it is the simple pronoun of the third person.
Were we to render with Matthias and Mehring®* καὶ δικαιοῦντα : even when He
justifies, the «ai would be very superfluous and weakening ; Paul would have
said δίκαιον δικαιοῦντα, or would have perhaps expressed himself pointedly by
δίκαιον κ. δικαιοῦντα ἀδίκους ἐν πίστεως "I. Observe further that the justus et jus-
tificans, in which lies the summum paradoxon evangelicum as opposed to the
O. T. justus et condemnans (according to Bengel), finds its solution and its
harmony with the Ο. T. in τὸν ἐκ πίστεως (see chap. iv., i. 17). The Roman
Catholic explanation of inherent righteousness (see especially Reithmayr) is
here the more inept. It is also to be remarked that according to vy. 24-26

1Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 475 f. 2 They are joined by Ernesti, Hihik ἃ. Ap. P. p. 32.

‘

CHAP. III., 2%. 141
grace was the determining ground in God, that prompted Him to permit the
atonement. He purposed thereby indeed the revelation of His righteousness ;
but to the carrying out of that revelation just thus, and not otherwise,
namely, through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, He was moved by His own χάρις.
Moreover the ἔνδειξις of the divine righteousness which took place through the
atoning death of Christ necessarily presupposes the satisfactio vicaria of the
Hofmann’s doctrine of atonement (compensation) * does not per-
mit the simple and—on the basis of the O. T. conception of atoning sacrifice
—historically definite ideas of vv. 25, 26, as well as the unbiassed and clear
representation of the ἀπολύτρωσις in ver. 24 (comp. the λύτρον ἀντί, Matt.
Xx. 28, and ἀντίλυτρον, 1 Tim. 11. 6) to subsist alone with it. On the other
hand these ideas and conceptions given in and homogeneously pervading the
entire N. T., and whose meaning can by no means be evaded, exclude the
theory of Onin: not merely in form but also in substance, as a deviation
evading and explaining away the N. T. type of doctrine, with which the
point of view of a ‘‘ befalling,” the category in which Hofmann invariably
places the death of Jesus, is especially at variance. And Faith in the aton-
ing death has not justification merely ‘‘in its train” (Hofmann in loe.), but
justification takes place subjectively through faith (vv. 22, 25), and indeed in
such a way that the latter is reckoned for righteousness, iv. 5, consequently
immediately (ἐξαίφνης, Chrysostom).

Ver. 27. Paul now infers (οὖν) from vv. 21-26—in lively interchange of
question and answer, like a victor who has kept the field—that Jewish
boasting (not human boasting generally, Fritzsche, Krehl, Th. Schott) is
excluded.? [See Note XXXIV. p. 149.] The article indicates that which

ἱλαστήριον.

1**Tn consequence of man’s having allowed
himself to be induced through the working
of Satan to sin, which made him the object
of divine wrath, the Triune God, in order
that He might perfect the relation consti-
tuted by the act of creation between Him-
self and humanity into a complete fellow-
ship of love, has had recourse to the most
extreme antithesis of Father and Son, which
was possible without self-negation on the
part of God, namely, the antithesis of the
Father angry at humanity on account of
sin, and of the Son belonging in sinlessness
to that humanity, but approving Himself
under all the consequences of its sin even
unto the transgressor’s death that befell
Him through Satan’s agency ; so that, after
Satan had done on Him the utmost which he
was able to do to the sinless One in conse-
quence of sin, without obtaining any other
result than His final standing the test, the
relation of the Father to the Son was now
a relation of God to the humanity begin-
ning anew in the Son—a relation no longer
determined by the sin of the race spring-
ing from Adam, but by the righteousness
of the Son.”” Hofmann in the Zi. Zeitschr.
1856, p. 179 f. Subsequently (see espec.

Schriftb. ΤΙ. 1, p. 186 ff.) Hofmann has sub-
stantially adhered to his position. See the
literature of the entire controversy car-
ried on against him, especially by Philippi,
Thomasius, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Schneider,
Weber, given by the latter, vom Zorne
Gottes, p. xliii. ff. ; Weizsicker in the Jahrb.
7. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 154 ff. It is not to
the ecclesiastical doctrine, but to Schleier-
macher’s, and partially also Mencken’s sub-
jective representation of it, that Hofmann’s
theory, although in another form, stands
most nearly related. Comp. on ver. 24:
and for a more detailed account Ritschl,
Rechtfertigung und Versdhnung, 1870, I. p.
569 ff., along with his counter-remarks
against Hofmannat p. 575 ff. As to keeping
the Scriptural notion of imputed right-
eousness clear of all admixture with the
moral change of the justified, see also Kést-
lin in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 1856, p.
105 ff., 118 ff., Gess, in the same, 1857, p. 679
ff., 1858, p. 718 ff., 1859, p. 467 ff. ; compared
however with the observations of Philippi
in his Glaubenslehre, iv. 2, p. 237 ff., 2nd edi-
tion.

2 Hofmann’s misconception of ver. 9 still
affects him, so astto make him think here

142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

is known, and has been before mentioned (ii. 17 ff.), looking back to vv. 9
and 1. --- ποῦ] As it were, seeking that which has vanished from the sphere
of vision, Luke viii. 25; 1 Cor. i. 20, xv. 55; 1 Pet. iv. 18; 2 Pet. iii, 4;
also frequently used thus by classic writers. — The καύχησις is not the object
of boasting (Reiche), which would be καύχημα, but the vaunting itself, which
is presented with vivid clearness as that which no longer exists. — ἐξεκλείσ-
Sy] οὐκ ἔτι χώραν ἔχει, Theodoret. — διὰ ποίου νόμου :] 561]. ἐξεκλείσϑη, not
δικαιούμεϑα, which Mehring, following Michaelis, wholly without logical
ground wishes to be supplied. The exclusion, namely, must necessarily
have ensued through a /aw no longer allowing the καύχησις ; but through
what sort of a law ? of what nature is it? Is it one that demands works ὃ
No, but a law of faith. In these attributes lies the ποιότης of the law, which
is the subject of inquiry. This cannot have the quality of the Mosaic law,
which insists upon works, but thereby fosters and promotes the parade of
work-righteousness (ii. 17) ; it must, on the contrary, be a law that requires
faith, as is done by the Christian plan of salvation, which prescribes the
renunciation of all merit through works, and requires us to trust solely in
the grace of God in Christ. The Christian plan of salvation might be in-
cluded under the conception of a νόμος, because the will of God is given in
it by means of the Gospel (comp. 1 John iii. 23), just as in the O. T. revela-
tion by means of the Mosaic law. And the expression was necessary in the
connection, because the question διὰ ποίου νόμον ; required both the old and
new forms of the religious life to be brought under the one conception of
νόμος. Therefore the literal sense of νόμος remains unchanged, and it is
neither doctrine (Melanchthon and many others) nor religious economy.
Comp. ix. 31.

Ver. 28 gives the ground of the οὐχί «.7.2. — λογιζόμεϑα] οὐκ ἐπὶ ἀμφιβολίας
λέγεται (Theodore of Mopsuestia) : censemus, we deem, as in 11. 3, viii. 18 ;
2 Cor. xi. 5. The matter is set down as something that has now been
brought between Paul and his readers to a common ultimate judgment,
whereby the victorious tone of ver. 27 is not damped (as Hofmann objects),
but is on the contrary confidently sealed. —ricre:| On this, and not on
δικαιοῦσϑαι (Th. Schott, Hofmann), lies the emphasis in accordance with the
entire connection ; χωρὶς ἔργ. νόμου is correlative. Paul has conceived oy.
y. dix. together, and then placed first the word which has the stress’; compare
the critical observations. The dative denotes the procuring cause or medi-
um, just like διὰ πίστεως. Bernhardy, p. 101 f. The word ‘‘ alone,” added
by Luther—formerly an apple of discord between Catholics and Lutherans
(see the literature in Wolf)—did not belong to the translation as such,’ but
is in explanation justified by the context, which in the way of dilemma ‘‘ cuts
off all works utterly” (Luther), and by the connection of the Pauline doc-
trinal system generally, which excludes also the fides formata.? All fruit
of faith follows justification by faith ; and there are no degrees in justifica-

of Christian καύχησις. Comp., for the right “* only through faith.”

view, especially Chrysostom. 2 See Form. Conc. Ὁ. 585 f., 691. Comp. on
1 Luther has not added itin Gal. ii. 16, Gal. ii. 16, Osiander in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche

where the Niirnberg Bible of 1483 reads Theol. 1863, p. 703 f. ; Morison in loc.

CHAP, III., 29, 30. 143

tion.’— χωρὶς ἔργ. νόμου] Without the co-operation therein of works of the
law (ver. 20), which, on the contrary, remain apart from all connection with
it. Comp. ver. 21. — On the quite general ἄνϑρωπον, a man, comp. Chrysos-
tom : τῇ οἰκουμένῃ τὰς ϑύρας ἀνοίξας τῆς σωτηρίας, φησὶν, ἄνϑρωπον, τὸ κοινὸν τῆς
φύσεως ὄνομα ϑείς. See afterwards περιτομὴν. . .. καὶ ἀκροβυστ., ver. 30.
Comp. Gal. ii. 16.

Ver. 29. Or—in case what has just been asserted in ver. 28 might still be
doubted—is it only Jews to whom God belongs? and not also Gentiles ? He
must, indeed, have only been a God for the Jews, if He had made justifica-
tion conditional on works of the law, for in that case it could only be
destined for Jews,* insomuch as they only are the possessors of the law.
Consequently vv. 29, 30 contain a further closing thought, crowning the
undoubted accuracy of the confidently expressed λογιζόμεϑα κ.τ.}. in ver. 28.
The supplying of a predicative Θεός (Hofmann, Morison, and earlier expos-
itors) is superfluous, since the prevailing usage of εἶναί τίνος is amply suf-
ficient to make it intelligible, and it is quite as clear from the context that
the relationship which is meant is that of being God to the persons in
question.—How much the ναὶ καὶ ἐϑνῶν, said without any limitation whatever
—in their case, as with ᾿Ιουδαίων, God is conceived as protecting them, and
guiding to salvation—run counter to the degenerate theocratic exclusive-
ness.* But Paul speaks in the certain assurance, which had been already
given by the prophetic announcement of Messianic bliss for the Gentiles,
but which he himself had received by revelation (Gal. 1. 16), and which the
Roman church, a Pauline church, itself regarded as beyond doubt.

Ver. 30 is to be divided from the previous one merely by a comma. Re-
garding ἐπείπερ, whereas (in the N. T. only here) introducing something
undoubted, see Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 786 ; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 842
f.; Baeumlein, p. 204.—The unity of God implies that He is God, not merely
of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles ; for otherwise another special Deity
must rule over the Gentiles, which would do away with monotheism. — ὃς
δικαιώσει] who shall (therefore) justify. This exposition contains that which
necessarily follows from the unity of God, in so far as it conditions for both
parties one mode of justification (which however must be χωρὶς ἔργων, ver.
28). For Jewsas well as for Gentiles He must have destined the way of
righteousness by faith as the way of salvation. The future is neither put
for δικαιοῖ (Grotius, and many others), nor to be referred with Beza and
Fritzsche to the time of the final judgment, nor to be taken as the future of
inference (Riickert, Mehring, Hofmann), but is to be understood as in ver.
20 of every case of justification to be accomplished. Erasmus rightly says,
‘‘Respexit enim ad eos, qui adhuc essent in Judaismo seu paganismo.”—
The exchange of ἐκ and διὰ is to be viewed as accidental, without real dif-
ference, but also without the purpose of avoiding misconception (Mehring).
Comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 8 ; Eph. 11. 8. Unsuitable, especially for the impor-

1 Comp. Riggenbach (against Romang) in they would cease to be Gentiles.
- the Stud. τ. Krit. 1868, p. 227 ff. 3See on Matt. iii. 9, and in Eisenmen-
2 Not for the Gentiles also, unless they ρου entdeckt. Judenth. I. Ὁ. 587 f.
become proselytes to Judaism, whereby

144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.
tant closing thought, is the view of Calvin, followed by Jatho, that there
is an irony in the difference : ‘‘ Si quis vult habere differentiam gentilis a
Judaeo, hanc habeat, quod ille per fidem, hic vero ez fide justitiam con-
sequitur.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wetstein, Bengel, Hofmann, and
others explain it by various other gratuitous suggestions : van Hengel is
doubtful—The interchange of πίστεως and τῆς rior. (from faith through the
faith), in which the qualitative expression advances to the concrete with the
article, is also without special design, as similar accidental interchanges
often occur in parallel clauses (Winer, p. 110 [E. T. 1167). ὁ

Ver. 31—iv. 24. The harmony of the doctrine of justification by faith with
the law, illustrated by what is said in the law regarding the justification of
Abraham.—The new chapter should have begun with ver. 31, since that
verse contains the theme of the following discussion. If we should, with
Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bengel, and many others, including
Flatt, Tholuck, Kélner, Riickert, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit, and Meh-
ring, assume that at iv. 1 there is again introduced something new, so that
Paul does not carry further the νόμον ἱστῶμεν, v. 31, but in iv. 1 ff. treats of
a new objection that has occurred to him at the moment, we should then
have the extraordinary phenomenon of Paul as it were dictatorially dismiss-
ing an objection so extremely important and in fact so very naturally suggest-
ing itself, as νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν x.t.A., merely by an opposite assertion,
and then immediately, like one who has not a clear case, leaping away to
something else. The more paradoxical in fact after the foregoing, and
especially after the apparently antinomistic concluding idea in ver. 30, the
assertion νόμον ἱστῶμεν must have sounded, the more difficult becomes the
assumption that it is merely an anticipatory declaration abruptly interposed
(see especially Philippi, who thinks it is enlarged on at viii. 1 ff.); and the
less can ver. 20, διὰ y. νόμου ἐπίγνωσις auapt. be urged as analogous, since
that proposition had really its justification there in what preceded. Accord-
ing to Th. Schott, νόμος is not meant to apply to the Mosaic law at all, but

1 Bengel : ‘“‘ Judaci pridem in fide fuerant;
gentiles fidem ab illis recens nacti erant.”
Comp. Origen. Similarly Matthias: in the
case of the circumcised faith appears as the
ground, in that of the uncircumcised as the
means of justification; ἐκ mor. signifies:
because they believe,dca τ. πίστ: if they be-
lieve. In the case of the circumcised faith
is presupposed as covenant-faithfulness.
Comp. also Bisping. According to Hof-
mann, Paul is supposed to have said in the
ease of the circumcised in consequence of
faith, because these wish to become right-
eous in consequence of legal works ; but in
the case of the uncircumcised dy means of
faith, because with the latter no other pos-
sible way of becoming righteous was con-
ceivable. In the former instance faith is the
preceding condition ; in the latter the faith
existing for the purpose of justification
(therefore accompanied by the article) is

the means, by which God, who works it,
helps to righteousness. This amounts toa
subjective invention of subtleties which
are equally incapable of proof as of refuta-
tion, but which are all the more groundless,
seeing that Paul is fond of such inter-
changes of prepositions in setting forth the
same relation (comp. ver. 25 f., and on 2 Cor.
iii. 11, and Eph. i. 7). How frequent are
similar interchanges also in classic authors |
Moreover, in our passage the stress is by
no means on the prepositions (Hofmann),
but on περιτομήν and ἀκροβυστίαν. And as
to the variation of the prepositions, Augus-
tine has properly observed (de Spir. et lit.

_ 29) that this interchange serves non ad

aliquam differentiam, but ad varietatem locu-
tionis. Comp. on ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῦν (here
said of Jews) also of Gentiles, Gal. iii. 8;
Rom. ix. 30, and generally i. 17.

»

CHAP. ΤΠ 31. 145

to the fact that, according to ver. 27, faith is a νόμος, in accordance with
which therefore Paul, when making faith a condition of righteousness, as-
cribes to himself not abrogation of the law, but rather an establishment of
it, setting up merely what God Himself had appointed as the method of
salvation. The discourse would thus certainly have a conclusion, but by a
jugglery’ with a word (νόμος) which no reader could, after ver. 28, under-
stand in any other sense than as the Mosaic law. Hofmann explains sub-
stantially in the same way as Schott. He thinks that Paul conceives to
himself the objection that in the doctrine of faith there might be found a
doing away generally of all law, and now in opposition thereto declares that
that doctrine does not exclude, but includes, the fact that there is a divine
order of human life (2).

Ver. 31. (See Note XXXY. p. 150.) Οὖν] The Apostle infers for himself
from his doctrine of .justification ἐκ πίστεως... .. χωρὶς ἔργων vouov—just
discussed—a possible objection and reproach : Do we then make away with
the law (render it invalid) through faith ὃ — νόμον] emphatically put first, and
here also to be understood neither of the moral law, nor of every law in
general, nor of the entire O. T., but, as is proved by the antithesis between
νόμος and πίστις and the reference as bearing on ver. 28, of the Mosaic law.
Comp. Acts xxi. 28, Gal. iv. 21 f. — διὰ τῆς riot. | ὁ.6. thereby, that we assert
faith as the condition of justification. — νόμον ἱστῶμεν] Not : we let the law
stand (Matthias), but : we make it stand, we produce the result that it, so
far from being ready to fall, in reality stands upright (βεβαιοῦμεν, Theodoret)
in its authority, force, and obligation. Comp. 1 Macc. xiv. 29, 11. 27 ; Ec-
cles. xliv. 20-22. This ἱστάνειν of the law, whereby there is secured to it sta-
bility and authority instead of the καταργεῖσϑαι, takes place by means of (see ch.
iv.) the Pauline doctrine demonstrating and making good the fact that, and
the mode in which, justification by the grace of God through faith is already
taught in the law, so that Paul and his fellow teachers do not come into antag-
onism with the law, as if they desired to abolish and invalidate it by a new
teaching, but, on the contrary, by their agreement with it, and by proving
their doctrine from it, secure and confirm it in its position and essential
character. — The νόμον ἱστῶμεν, however, is so little at variance with the
abrogation of the law as an institute of works obligatory in order to the becom-
ing righteous, which has taken place through Christianity (x. 4; 2 Cor. iii.
7; Gal. iii.; Rom. vii. 4; Gal. ii. 19; Col. ii. 14), that, on the contrary,
the law had to fall in this aspect, in order that, in another aspect, the same
law, so far as it teaches faith as the condition of the δικαιοσύνη, might be by
the gospel imperishably confirmed in its authority, and even, according to
Matth. v. 17, fulfilled. For in respect of this assertion of the value of faith
the law and the gospel appear one. —If the νόμον ἱστῶμεν and its relation
to the abrogation of the law be defined to mean that ‘‘ from faith proceeds
the new obedience, and the love develops itself, which is the πλήρωμα νόμου,.
xiii. 10” (Philippi ; comp. Riickert, Krehl, Umbreit, Morison), as Augus-.

1This objection in no way affects the very ποίου placed along with it requires the
question διὰ ποίον νόμου, yer. 27 (in opposi- general notion of νόμου.
tion to Hofmann’s objection), where the 2 Comp. Weiss, Lidl. Theol. p. 333.

146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

tine, Melanchthon, who nevertheless mixes up with it very various elements,
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, and others assumed (comp. also
Apol. C. A. p. 88, 223), the further detailed illustration of ch. iv. is quite
as much opposed to this view, as it is to the interpretations which conceive
the law as pedagogically leading to Christ (Grotius, Olshausen), or as fulfilled
in respect of its object, which is justification by faith (Chrysostom, Oecume-
nius, Theophylact, and others.’) In the case of the two latter views, faith
appears as something added to the law, which is just what Paul combats in
ch. iv. On the form ἱστῶμεν, from ἱστάω, see Matthiae, p. 482, Winer, p. 75
[E. T. 78]. Still the ἱστάνομεν, recommended by Griesbach and adopted by
Lachmann and Tischendorf, has preponderant attestation (so also 8* ; but
x** has ἱστῶμεν), which is here decisive (in opposition to Fritzsche), espe-
cially when we take into account the multitude of other forms in MSS. (στά-
vouer, ἵσταμεν, συνιστῶμεν, συνιστάνομεν et al.).

Notres py AMERIcAN EDIToR.

XXIII. Ver..1. τὸ περισσόν.

τὸ περισσόν is the superiority of the Jew over the Gentile, which was con-
nected with the old covenant, and ἡ ὠφέλεια the advantage which circumcision
gave, as the sign of this superiority. To the Judaistic party of the Apostle’s
day the position taken in ii, 25-29 would naturally seem to deny any superi-
ority whatever ; and thus the objection was sure to arise, at this point, which
the Apostle now proceeds to meet. He explains that the Jew stands at an ad-
vantage in many points, which are summed up, indeed, in the possession of the
O. T. Scriptures—and that this is the true meaning of that in which they
gloried ; but that, in the matter of justification by works before God, they
were on the same level with the Gentiles. All alike must fail of such justi-
fication, because all alike had sinned.

XXIV. Ver. 2. πρῶτον piv γὰρ x.t.A.

The explanation given by Meyer of the omission of other points which would
naturally follow the first is undoubtedly correct—that the writer was led away
from his original intention by the question of ver. 3. We may believe, how-
ever, that he did not return to the plan of enumerating the other advantages,
after concluding the line of thought in vv. 3-8, because he felt that the one
‘mentioned really involved in itself all the rest.

XXV. Ver. 2. τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The oracles of God, in the sense here intended, are the O. T. Scriptures,
viewed as containing the covenant of God with its law and promises, and not
merely the Messianic prophetic utterances, The argument for the latter
reference, which is founded on a supposed necessity of giving to ἀπιστία and

190 yap ἤϑελεν 6 νόμος, τουτέστι τὸ δικαιῶσαι τελειοῖ: ὁμοῦ yap τῷ πιστεῦσαι τίνα δικαιοῦται;
ἄνϑρωπον, οὐκ ἴσχυσε δὲ ποιῆσαι, τοῦτο ἡ πίστις Theophylact.

aa

NOTES. 147

ἀπιστεῖν the sense of unbelief, is, as Weiss also intimates, unsound ; the contrary,
being proved, as he says, by 2 Tim. ii. 13, The entire view of Meyer with
regard to these words in this and the following verse is, as de Wette well re-
marks, altogether opposed to the Apostle’s standpoint in these verses, which
is outside of the Christian system, and to the connection with the preceding
and following contéxt, in which the transgressions of the law on the part of
the Jews, and the judgment of God on purely legal principles, are under dis-
cussion.

XXVI. Ver. 3. τί γὰρ εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες ;

The more probable view of this verse is, that the Apostle anticipates a
question which might be pressed by an opponent in the discussion—namely,
does not this statement, that the Jews have the O. T., involve the admis-
sion of all that they claim (cf. σύ, ii. 3), for, surely, the want of faithfulness to
the covenant on the part of some will not destroy God’s fidelity to His promise.
To this latter point (ver. 3) he replies by the emphatic μὴ γένοιτο, which involves
two elements—a negative answer to the question, and an utter rejection of the
thought as abhorrent to right feeling. It is to the second of these two elements
that ver. 4, with its Psalm-quotation, attaches itself. In a similar way, at ver.
5, he again supposes a question suggesting itself from the other party: If, as
is implied in ver. 4, God’s righteousness is even rendered conspicuous by their
unrighteousness, does it not show injustice in God to inflict a penalty on those
who thus contribute to His glory? ΤῸ this question he replies with the same
emphatic phrase, and attaches to the first of its two elements (see above), the
following verses, which contain a confirmation of the negative. Such a posi-
tion would do away with all Divine judgment, and would lead to the pernicious
and untenable doctrine, that we may do evil that good may come.

XXVIII. Vv. 5, 6. μὴ γένοιτο. --- κατὰ ἄνθρωπον.

μὴ γένοιτο is used by Paul only in the Epistles of the same section and class
to which this Ep. belongs (Rom., Gal., Cor.). It always has the meaning given
in the preceding note, and the connection of the following words with it may
vary in different cases, as it does in this context. κατὰ ἄνθρωπον also occurs
only in these Epistles—everywhere meaning, after the manner of a man outside
of the Divine sphere. The particular signification, within the limits of this gen-
eral sense, is determined in each instance by the context.

XXVIII. Ver. 5. μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεός.

The Apostle is not to be regarded, in this passage (vv. 1-8), as introducing
an opponent into his discourse, as if in a dialogue, or directly quoting his
language. The form of the question in ver. 5, μὴ ἄδικος x.7.4. is clear evidence
of this, for the objector would have put the inquiry in the form which looks
for an affirmative answer, and not, as here, for a negative one. On the other
hand, he carries forward his entire argument in his own person, and formulates
for himself the objections, difficulties, or questions which, as he conceives,
might be presented.

148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

XXIX. Ver. 9. mane ὩΣ

The explanation of προεχόμεθα, to which Meyer here refers, has in its favor
the fact that the passage from Plutarch may be cited as justifying it, while no
passage is found sustaining the interpretation given by Tholuck, de Wette, and
others, or, where the verb stands without an obj. accusdtive, that given by
Meyer himself. Every other argument which the case affords, however, seems
to bear against this explanation--are we surpassed. (a) There is nothing in
the preceding context, or in the position which Paul maintains anywhere, to
suggest such a question. (b) His entire course of reasoning from ii. 1 onward
is intended to show that the Jew is ona level with the Gentile in respect to
justification by works, not that he stands on a lower position. (c) The follow-
ing verses do not harmonize with this view of the word. They do not set
forth the proof that the Gentiles are not better than the Jews, but that the
Jews are not better than the Gentiles. (d) Such a question would not readily
come from the Jewish side. (e) Ver. 19 shows that in vv. 10-18 he had
special reference to the Jews, and that his object in this passage is the same as
that which he had in view in the previous chapter. This explanation, which
is. adopted in R. V. by the English revisers, must, accordingly, be rejected.
The view of Meyer must also be set aside. Τὸ hasno greater support from
usage than that of de Wette and A. V. Indeed, it is less difficult to suppose
that the writer uses the middle voice of this verb, after the analogy of many
other verbs, in the simple active sense, or, with Grimm and Philippi, as mean-
ing have we an advantage for ourselves, than that he fails to insert τι, which is
called for by Meyer's view, and could so easily have been expressed. More-
over, the following context is not suited to the question, Do we put forward
anything in our defence (as Weiss ed. Mey. also agrees), while it is precisely
adapted to the question, Have we any advantage or superiority? The American
revisers have rightly favored this latter explanation (R. V., Appendix). The
objection made by Meyer to this view of the word, that it is at variance with
ver. 2, is without force, since, after showing that the possession of the O. T.,
though giving the Jews a superiority to the Gentiles in a certain degree, did not
place them at any advantage in respect to the matter in discussion (i.e. the
escaping the divine condemnation), it was most natural that the question
should be renewed, Do the Jews have any real advantage in this vital point ὃ
The view of Godet, that the verb means are we sheltered, seems to accord
neither with usage nor with the context.

XXX. Ver. 20. διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, «.7.A.

This verse is grammatically connected with the preceding, as Meyer explains.
At the same time, the first part of the verse contains what is, in substance, a
statement of the result of the foregoing argument, i. 18-iii. 19—namely, that
from works of the law there is no justification for any one. This negative re-
sult being reached, the positive conclusion follows without proof (see note on
i. 17 above) in ver. 21 ff. The second part of the verse adds a confirmation of
this negative statement, by pointing to the fact that the law leads to a full
knowledge of sin—thus, to a very different end from justification. The author
does not dwell on this latter point, as it is outside of the line of his present
thought todo so. His purpose is answered here by the mere presentation of it.

ἂν

NOTES. 149

XXXI. Ver. 21. νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη k.T.A,

In vv. 21, 22, the proposition of i. 17 15 repeated, as ΠΟῪ established. γάρ of
the last clause of ver. 22 introduces this clause as connected with πάντας τοὺς
πιστ.---αἰϊ, for there is no distinction, and then ver. 23 is added in immediate
connection with this ; there is no distinction, for (yap, ver. 23) all sinned, etc.
These clauses, in their relation to each other and to the entire preceding argu-
ment, clearly show, that the distinction referred to is that between Jews and
Gentiles, and that all means Jews as well as Gentiles, as opposed to Gentiles only.
Vy. 23-26 are subordinate to vy. 21, 22 through these two particles (yap) ; never-
theless, in these verses the writer incidentally and easily passes to a more full
statement—almost a definition—of justification by faith. They constitute in
one aspect, therefore, a very important part of this passage in which the origi-
nal proposition is repeated.

XXXII. Ver. 23. πάντες yap ἥμαρτον.

This verb is translated in A. V. and R. V. have sinned. The aor. is to be ex-
plained from the standpoint taken by the author :—the sinning is a thing defi-
nitely past when the question of their present position before God is raised.
Dr. Charles Hodge says on this word, as here used, ‘‘ The idea that all men
now stand in the posture of sinners before God might be expressed either by
saying all have sinned (and are sinners), or all sinned. The latter is the form
adopted by the Apostle.’’ Cf., however, his view of the same verb and tense
in v. 12.

XXXII. Ver. 24. δικαιούμενοι x.7.A.

δικαιούμενοι is, viewed grammatically, a circumstantial participle connected with
ὑστεροῦνται. According to the underlying thought, this word, with the following
context, brings out the only method of justification for all who have sinned.
In the explanation of the method thus given, we find (a) the gratuitous char-
acter of the justification, δωρεάν ; (Ὁ) the origin of it (here expressed, indeed,
by the dat. instrum.) τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι ; (c) the objective means, διὰ τῆς ἀπολ ; (d)
the subjective means, διὰ πίστεως ; (e) the relation to it of Christ’s sacrifice,
προέθετο ἱλαστήριον ἐν τῷ abt. αἵματι ; (f ) the reason for this sacrifice, εἰς ἔνδειξιν
τῆς Ou, κιτ.λ ; (g) the final purpose, εἰς τὸ εἷναι--- Ἰησοῦ.

XXXIV. Ver. 27. ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις.

Two points should be noticed here. (1) The glorying alluded to in the pre-
vious part of the Epistle is that of the Jews concerning the advantageous po-
sition which they claimed for themselves as related to the judgment of God.
This glorying, therefore, must be that which is intended by ἡ καύχησις of this
verse. (2) The question which is raised and answered respecting this glory-
ing is introduced by the particle οὖν. It is, accordingly, suggested to the writ-
er’s mind as a natural result of the immediately preceding verses (21-26).
In view of these points, we must hold that Meyer’s understanding of this verse
and those which follow (28-30) is correct, and that we have here an inference
or corollary from the proposition, vv. 21, 22. This proposition, being estab-
lished, carries with it the exclusion of all such Jewish boasting. Godet’s expla-
nation, which makes vv. 27-31 a proof of the harmony of justification by

150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

faith with the true meaning of the law (vv. 27, 28 showing that the gospel ex-
cludes justification by works, as vv. 9-20 had already shown that the law ex-
cluded it), is contrary to the indications of the passage as stated above, and is
so artificial as to render it improbable. Weiss ed. Mey. agrees with Fritzsche
and Schott in referring the καύχησις to ““ human glorying in general.’’ But this
view is at variance with the points indicated above,

XXXY. Ver. 31. νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν k.7.A.

We may determine the meaning and connection of this verse by the obser-
vation of certain facts in the case. (1) νόμου, as here found, immediately fol-
lows νύμου of ver. 28 (vv. 29, 30 being merely a proof of the statement of ver,
28). The reference in the two cases must, therefore, be to the same law. In
the former verse, however, inasmuch as it is connected with ἔργων and contrast-
ed with πίστει, νόμου means the Mosaic law. The view of Hofmann, therefore
(with whom, on this point, Weiss ed. Mey. apparently agrees), that the refer-
ence in ver, 31 is to ‘‘a divine order in human life,’’ must be rejected. Hof-
mann argues for his view from νόμου of ver. 27, but the word is evidently there
used in a peculiar sense, for the special purposes of that verse. Moreover, as
νόμου has there a connection with faith as well as with works (the one economy or
system being contrasted with the other), the question of ver. 31, had this sense
been intended, would hardly have been presented with νόμον only ; it would
have asked as to the doing away with any divine ordering, or all idea of divine
ordering. (2) The next chapter discusses the case of Abraham; that is, it
presents the proof of justification by faith which is derived from the fact that
this was the system involved in the covenant with the father of the Jewish
people. This is the same argument for the Pauline doctrine which is brought
forward in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. vy. 6-10. The first half of
this fourth chapter (vv. 3-12) corresponds very closely with Gal. iii. 6, 7, and
the second half, ver. 13 ff. with Gal. iii. 8-10. Following the more general
argument (i. 18—iii. 30) we have, therefore, that which comes from the older
Scriptures ; and between the two this verse is inserted. This position of the
new question and its answer indicates that they are designed by the writer to
be in the direct line of his argument, and thus that they open the way for
the fourth chapter. The view of Shedd, Hodge, Philippi, Morison, and others,
that the question has reference to a nullification of the law in its moral obli-
gation, or that the Apostle’s reply defends the faith-system from the charge of
having an antinomian tendency, is accordingly excluded. This view of these
writers is also rendered improbable by the fact alluded to by Meyer, that, if it
be adopted, we must regard the Apostle as having raised an objection of a very
serious character, which he dictatorially dismisses with no proof of his neg-
ative answer.

CHAP, IV., 1: 151

CHARTER LY.

Ver. 1. ’ABpadu . . . εὑρηκέναι] Lachm. and Tisch. (8) read εὑρηκ. ᾿Αβρ. τὸν
προπάτορα ἡμῶν, which Griesb. also approved. This position of the words has
indeed preponderant attestation (AC DE FG δὲ, min., Copt. Arm, Vulg. It.
and several Fathers), but may be suspected of being a transposition intended to
connect κατὰ σάρκα with τὸν πατέρα ju., as in fact this construction was prev-
alent among the ancients. προπάτορα (Lachm.) though attested by A B C* &,
5, 10, 21, 137, Syr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers, appears all the more proba-
bly a gloss, since πατέρα here is not used in a spiritual sense as it is afterwards
in vv. 11, 12, 17, 18. — Ver. 11. περιτομῆς] Griesb. recommended περιτομῆν, which
however is only attested by A. C*, min., Syr. utr. Arm. and some Fathers ; and
on account of the adjoining accusatives very easily slipped in, especially in
the position after ἔλαβε. --- καὶ αὐτοῖς] καί is wanting in A B &*, min. Ar. pol.
Vulg. ms. Orig. in schol. Cyr. Damase, Condemned by Mill and Griesb.,
omitted by Lachm., and Tisch. (8). But after the final syllable NAIJ the καί,
not indispensable for the sense, was very easily overlooked. On the other hand
the ground assumed for its addition, by Reiche, that ‘‘ the copyists would not
have the Jews altogether excluded,” cannot be admitted as valid, because in
fact the Jews are immediately after, ver. 12, expressly included. — The article
before δικαιοσύνην, which Tisch, (8) has omitted, has preponderant attestation.
Its omission is connected with the old reading (A) εἰς δικαιοσύνην (comp. ver. 9,
v. 3). Ver. 12. τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβ. πίστ.]. The reading τῆς πίστ. τῆς ἐν τ. ἀκροβ.,
recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Scholz, lacks the authority of most
and the best uncials, and seems a mechanical alteration after ver. 11. The
article τῇ however is, with Tisch. in accordance with decisive testimony, to be
deleted, and to be regarded as having been likewise introduced from ver. 11 (not
as omitted after ver. 10, as Fritzsche thinks). — Ver. 15. od yap] A B C &*, min.,
Copt. Syr. p. (in margin), Theodoret, Theophyl. Ambr. Ruf. read ov δέ.
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. (8), An
alteration, occasioned by the contrast on failing to perceive the appropriateness
of meaning in the ydp. — Ver. 17. ἐπίστευσε] F G and some vss. and Fathers
read ἐπίστευσας (so Luther). The κατέναντι οὗ «.7.2. was still regarded as belong-
ing to the passage of Scripture. — Ver. 19. οὐ] Wanting in A BC 8, 67**, 93,
137, Syr. Erp. Copt. Chrys. Damasc. Julian. Condemned by Griesb. and
deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), But this omission of the od, as well as the
very weakly attested ὡς and licet, manifestly arose from incorrectly having re-
gard here to Gen. xvii. 17 (as is done even by Buttmann, new. Gr. p. 305 f.
[E. T. 355 f.] and Hofmann). See the exegetical remarks. — ἤδη] Wanting in
B FG 47 et. al. and several vss, and Fathers, Bracketed by Lachm. deleted by
Fritzsche and Tisch. It is to be regarded as an addition, which suggested it-
self very easily, whereas there would have been no reason for its omission.

152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Ver. 1. οὖν] Accordingly, in consequence of the fact that we do not abro-
gate the law through faith, but on the contrary establish it.' This οὖν
brings in the proof to be adduced from the history of Abraham (‘ confir-
matio ab exemplo,” Calvin), for the νόμον ἱστῶμεν just asserted (iii. 31), in the
form of an inference. For if we should have to say that Abraham our father
has attained anything (namely, righteousness) κατὰ σάρκα, that would presup-
pose that the law, which attests Abraham’s justification, in nowise receives
establishment διὰ τῆς πίστεως (111. 31). Hence we have not here an objection,
but a question proposed in the way of inference by Paul himself, the an-
swer to which is meant to bring to light, by the example of Abraham, the
correctness of his νόμον ior. [See Note XXXVI. p.173.] His object is not to
let the matter rest with the short and concise dismissal of the question in iii,
31, but to enter into the subject more closely ; and this he does now by at-
taching what he has further to say to the authoritatively asserted, and in
his own view established, νόμον ἱστάνομεν in the form of an inference. More-
over, the whole is to be taken as one question, not to be divided into two
by a note of interrogation after ἐροῦμεν ; in which case there is harshly and
arbitrarily supplied to εὑρηκέναι (by Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Wetstein,
and Michaelis) δικαιοσύνην, or at least (van Hengel) the pronoun ἐΐ represent-
ing that word, which however ought to have been immediately suggested
by the context, as in Phil. iii. 12.? In the affirmation itself ’Ap. is the sub-
ject (quid dicemus Abrahamum nactum esse?). Th. Schott, by an unhappy
distortion of the passage, makes him the object (‘‘ why should we then say that
we have gained Abraham in a fleshly, natural sense for our ancestor 55) This
misconception should have been precluded by attending to the simple fact,
that in no passage in our Epistle (and in other Epistles the form of expres-
sion does not occur) does the τί in τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν mean why. Hofmann, who
had formerly (Schriftb. II. 2, p. 76 ff.) apprehended it in substance much
more correctly, now agrees with Schott in so far that he takes τέ οὖν ἐροῦμεν
as a question by itself, but then explains ᾿Αβραάμ likewise as the object, so
that the question would be, whether the Christians think that they have found
Abraham as their forefather after the flesh? ‘The origin of the church of
God, to which Christians belong, goes back to Abraham. Jn fleshly fashion
he is their ancestor, if the event through which he became such (namely,
the begetting of Isaac) lie within the sphere of the natural human life ; in
spiritual fashion, on the other hand, if that event belong to the sphere of
the history of salvation and its miraculous character, which according to
the Scripture (comp. Gal. iv. 28) is the case.” This exposition cannot be
disputed on linguistic grounds, especially if, with Hofmann, we follow
Lachmann’s reading. But it is, viewed in reference to the context, errone-
ous. For the context, as vv. 2, 3 clearly show, treats not of the contrast

1 Observe, in reference to ch. iv. (with
jii. 31), of what fundamental and profound
importance, and how largely subject to
controversy, the relation of Christianity to
Judaism was in the Apostolic age, particu-
larly in the case of mixed churches. The

minute discussion of this relation, there
fore, in a doctrinal Epistle so detailed, can-
not warrant the assumption that the church
was composed mainly of Jews, or at least
(Beyschlag) of proselytes.

2 Comp. Nagelsbach on J/. 1, 76, 302, ed. 3.

CHAP ATV, sil.

between the fleshly and the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in the case of
Christians, but of the justification of the ancestor, as to whether it took place
κατὰ σάρκα or by faith. Moreover, if ’A8p. was intended to be the object,
Paul would have expressed himself as unintelligibly as possible, since in vv.
' 2, 3 he in the most definite manner represents him as the subject, whose ac-
‘tion is spoken of. If we take Hofmann’s view, in which case we do not at
all see why the Apostle should have expressed himself by εὑρηκέναι, he would
have written more intelligibly by substituting for this the simple εἶναι, so
that ᾿Αβρ. would have been the subject in the question, as well as in what
follows. Finally the proposition that Abraham, as the forefather of believ-
ers as such, Was so not κατὰ σάρκα, Was so perfectly self-evident, both with
reference to the Jewish and the Gentile portion of the Ἰσραὴλ Θεοῦ, that Paul
would hardly have subjected it to discussion as the theme of so earnest a
question, while yet no reader would have known that in κατὰ σάρκα he was
to think of the miraculous begetting of Isaac. For even without the latter
Abraham would be the προπάτωρ of believers κατὰ πνεῦμα, namely, through
his justification by faith, ver. 9 ΠῚ ---- τ. πατέρα ju.) ‘‘fundamentum conse-
quentiae ab Abrahamo ad nos,” Bengel. Comp. ver. 11 f. ἡμῶν however
(comp. James ii. 21) is said from the Jewish standpoint, not designating
Abraham as the spiritual father of the Christians (Reiche, Hofmann, Th.
Schott), a point that is still for the present (see ver. 11) quite out of view.
---κατὰ σάρκα] [See Note XXXVII. p. 174] is, following the Peshito, with
most expositors to be necessarily joined to ebpyx.; not, with Origen, Ambro-
siaster, Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Toletus,
Calvin, whom Hofmann, Th. Schott, Reithmayr, Volkmar in Hilgenfeld’s
Zeitschr. 1862, p. 221 ff., follow, to τ. πατέρα ju. (not even although Lach-
mann’s reading were the original one); for the former, and not the latter,
needed the definition. Abraham has really attained righteousness, only not
κατὰ σάρκα, and ἐξ ἔργων in ver. 2 corresponds to the κατὰ σάρκα. Besides with
our reading the latter connection is impossible. — The σάρξ on its ethical
side 1 is the material-psychic human nature as the life-sphere of moral weak-
ness and of sinful power in man, partly as contrasted with the higher intel-
lectual and moral nature of the man himself, which is his πνεῦμα along with
the νοῦς (i. 9, vii. 18, 25, and see on Eph. iv. 23), and partly as opposed to
the superhuman divine life-sphere and its operation, as here ; see the se-
quel. Hence κατὰ σάρκα is: conformably to the bodily nature of man in ac-
cordance with its natural power, in contrast to the working of divine grace,
by virtue of which the εὑρηκέναι would not be κατὰ σάρκα, but κατὰ πνεῦμα,
because taking place through the Spirit of God. Comp. on John iii. 6.

1 The most recent literature on this sub-
ject: Ernesti, Urspr.d Stinde, I. p. ΤΊ f£.;
Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, 3; Hahn,
Theol. ἃ: N. Test. 1. p. 426 ff. ; Delitzsch,
Psychol. p. 374 ff.; Holsten, Bedeutung des
Wortes capéim N. Test. 1855, and Hy. d. Paul.
u. Petr. p. 365 ff. ; Baur in the Theol. Jahrb.
1857, p. 96 ff.; and Meut. Theol. Ὁ. 142f.;
Wieseler on Gal. p. 443 ff. ; Beck, Lehrwiss.

§ 22 ; Kling in Herzog’s Zncyhi. TV. p. 419 ff.;
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. Ὁ. 557 ff.; Weber,
vom Zorne Gottes, p. 80 ff.; also Ritschl,
altkath. Kirche, p. 66 ff.; Luthardt, vom freien
Willen, Ὁ. 394 ff.; Rich. Schmidt, Pazilin.
Christol. 1870, p. 8 ff. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 93;
Philippi, Glaudensl. III. p. 207 ff., and the
excursus thereon, Ὁ. 231 ff., ed. 9. For the
earlier literature see Ernesti, p. 50,

154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Since the épya are products of the human phenomenal nature and conditioned
by its ethical determination, not originating from the divine life-element,
they belong indeed to the category of the κατὰ σάρκα, and ἐξ ἔργων is the cor-
relative of κατὰ σάρκα (wherefore also Paul continues, ver. 2, εἰ yap ᾽Αβρ. ἐξ
ἔργων k.7.2.), but they do not exhaust the whole idea of it, as has often been
assumed, following Theodoret (κατὰ σάρκα τὴν ἐν ἔργοις, λέγει, ἐπειδήπερ διὰ
τοῦ σώματος ἐκπληροῦμεν τὰ ἔργα), and is still assumed by Reiche. KdOllner,
limiting it by anticipation from ver. 4, holds that it refers to the human
mode of earning wages by labour. Entirely opposed to the context, and also
to the historical reference of ver. 3, is the explanation of cirewmcision (Pela-
gius, Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, Estius, and others ; including Koppe, Flatt,
Baur, and Mehring) which Riickert also mixes up, at the same time that he
explains it of the ἔργοις. Philippi also refers it to both. — On εὑρηκ., adep-
tum esse, comp. εὑρεῖν κέρδος, Soph. E17. 1297, ἀρχήν, Dem. 69,1. The middle
is still more expressive, and more usual ; see Kriiger, § 52, 10, 1, Xen. ii. 1,
8, and Kiihner in loc. The perfect infinitive is used, because Abraham is
realized as present ; see ver. 2.

Ver. 2. The question in ver. 1 contained the negative sense, which had
therefore necessarily to be limited by κατὰ σάρκα : ‘* We may not assert that
Abraham has obtained anything according to the flesh.” The reason for
this is now assigned (yap) : ‘‘ For, assuming that Abraham has been justified
by works” (as was the Jewish opinion),’ ‘‘he has cause for boasting,” namely,
that he has attained righteousness through his actions, but he has not this
ground of boasting with respect to God (as if his justification were the
divine act), since, namely, in the case supposed it is not God to whom he
owes the justification, but on the contrary he has himself earned it, and God
would simply have to acknowledge it as a human self-acquirement. God
has not, in that supposed case, done anything for him, on account of which
he might thus boast with regard to God as his justifier ; for ἡ τῶν ἀγαϑῶν
ἔργων πλήρωσις αὐτοὺς στεφανοῖ τοῦς ἐργαζομένους, τὴν δὲ τ. Θεοῦ
φιλανϑρωπίαν ov δείκνυσιν, Theodoret. Comp. also Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, and Theophylact. Thus for the proper understanding of this
difficult passage (Chrysostom : ἀσαφὲς τὸ εἰρημένον) we must go back to the
explanation of the Greek expositors, which is quite faithful both to the
words and the context. Comp. on vv. 3, 4. This interpretation, now
adopted also by Tholuck (comp. Reithmayr and Th. Schott), has especially
this advantage, that ἐδικαιώϑη is not taken otherwise than in the entire
development of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, not therefore as somewhat indefinite and
general (‘‘ justus apparuit,” Grotius), in which case it would remain a ques-
tion by whom Abraham was found righteous (Riickert, Philippi ; comp.
Beza and others ; also Grotius and Koppe, and, with trifling variation, de
Wette, likewise Spohn in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1843, p. 429 ff., Volkmar, and
others, That Abraham was justified with God was known to no Jew other-

ΤῊ the Talmud it is even inferred from 2; Beresch. rabba f. 57,4. Comp. the pas-
Gen. xxvi. 5 that Abraham kept the whole sages from Philo quoted by Schnecken-
law of Moses. Kiddusch f. 82,1; Joma f. 28, burger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 185.

CHAP. IV., 2. 155,
wise,’ and no reader could in accordance with the entire context understand
ἐδικαιώϑη Otherwise, than in this definite sense, consequently in the solemn
absolute sense of the Apostle (in opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p.
35). The only question was, whether ἐξ ἔργων or ἐκ πίστεως. If we suppose
the former case, it is indeed for Abraham worthy of all honour, and he may
boast of that which he has himself achieved, but with reference to God, as
if He had justified him, he has no ground for boasting.* Observe besides,
that πρὸς is used not in the sense of ἐνώπιον, coram (Hofmann : over against),
or apud (Vulgate), but in accordance with the quite common usage of ἔχειν
with the object of the thing (to have something to do, to say, to boast, to
ask, to censure, etc.), and with specification of the relation of reference to
some one through πρός twa. The opposite of ἔχειν καύχημα πρός is ἔχειν
μομφὴν πρός, Col. iii. 18. The special mode of the reference is invariably
furnished by the context, which here, in accordance with the idea of
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Suggests the notion that God is the bestower of the blessing
meant by καύχημα. To that the ἔχειν καύχημα of Abraham does πού refer, if
he was justified by works. In the latter case he cannot boast of himself :
Reiche and Fritzsche, following Calvin,
Calovius, and many others, have discovered here an incomplete syllogism.
[See Note XXXVIII. p. 174], in which ἀλλ᾽ ob πρὸς τ. Θεόν is the minor
premiss, and the conclusion is wanting, to this effect : ‘‘Si suis bene factis
Dei favorem nactus est, habet quod apud Deum glorietur. . .. ; sed non
habet, quod apud Deum glorietur, quum libri s. propter θην, non propter
pulchre facta eum Deo probatum esse doceant (ver. 3)... . ; non est
igitur Abr. ob bene facta Deo probatus,” Fritzsche.* Forced, and even
contrary to the verbal sense ; for through the very contrast ἀλλ᾽ ov π. τ. Θ.
the simple xaiyyua is distinguished from the καύχημα πρὸς τ. Θεόν, as one that
takes place not πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Paul must have written : ἔχει καύχημα πρὸς
τὸν Θεόν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ (Or ἀλλὰ μὴν) οὐκ ἔχει. Mehring takes ἀλλ᾽ ov πρὸς τὸν Θεόν as a
question: ‘‘Tf Abraham has become righteous by works, he has glory, but
has he it not before God?” But in what follows it is the very opposite of
the affirmation, which this question would imply, that is proved. If the
words were interrogative, ἀλλὰ μή must have been used instead of ἀλλ᾽ οὐ (but
yet not before God?) Hofmann, in consequence of his erroneous exposition of
ver. 1, supposes that Paul wishes to explain how he came to propose the ques-
tion in ver. 1, and to regard an answer to it as necessary. What is here
involved, namely, is nothing less than a contradiction between what Chris-
tians say of themselves (when they deny all possibility of becoming righteous

ὁ Θεὸς με ἐδικαίωσε, Θεοῦ; τὸ δῶρον.

1Comp. Eccles. xliy. 19 ff.; Mamnass. 8;
Joseph. Antt. xi. 5, 7; Eisenmenger, entdeckt.
Judenth. I. p. 322, 343.

2 Van Hengel places a point after καύχ.,
and takes ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς τ. Θεόν as an inde-
pendent sentence, in which he supplies se-
cundum literas sacras, making the sense:
“Atqui gloriandi materiam Deum Abra-
hamo denegare videmus in libris sacris.”
But that is, in fact, not there. Against my

own interpretation in the 1st ed. (making
ei... . ἐδικαιώϑη the question, and then
ἔχει. . . . Θεόν the answer negativing it)
see Philippi. The «i must be the dialectic
if.

3 50 ἴῃ substance also Kraussold in the
Stud. τι. Krit. 1842, p. 783; Baur in the Theol.
Jahrb. 1857, p. 71; Koéstlin in the Jahrd. f.
Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 92.

156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

by their own actions), and what holds good of ‘‘an Abraham,” the father of
the people of God. Τί the latter has become righteous through his own
action, he has glory, and by this very cirewmstance his ancestorship is dis-
tinguished from that of all others. But then the Scripture teaches that
what God counted worthy in Abraham was his faith, and it is therefore
clear that the glory which he has, if he has become righteous by works, is
no glory in presence of God, and consequently is not jitted to be the basis of his
position in sacred history. This is a chain of ideas imported into the pas-
sage ; instead of which it was the object of the Apostle himself merely to
set forth the simple proposition that Abraham was not justified by works,
and not at all to speak of the mode in which the Christian ancestorship of
the patriarch came to subsist. —xabyyua (comp. on Phil. 1. 26, ii. 16) is
throughout the N. T. materies gloriandi ; as also in the LXX. and Apoc-
rypha ; although in classic authors’ it also occurs as the equivalent of
καύχησις, gloriatio. In Gal. vi. 4, also, it is joined with ἔχειν.

Ver. 3. I am right in saying : ob πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, for Scripture expressly de-
rives the justification of Abraham from his faith, not from his works, and
indeed as something received through imputation ; so that he consequently
possesses, not the previously supposed righteousness of works, but the
righteousness of faith as a favour of God, and has ground for boasting of
his righteousness in reference to God. That righteousness by works he would
have earned himself. Comp. ver. 4. The emphasis lies on ἐπίστευσε and
ἐλογίσϑη, not on τῷ Θεῷ (Mehring). See ver. 4 f. The passage quoted is
Gen. xv. 6, according to the LXX., which renders the active 72UM) by the
passive κ. ἐλογίσϑη. In the Hebrew what is spoken of is the faith which
Abraham placed in the divine promise of a numerous posterity, and which
God put to his account as righteousness, 1? 7%, ὁ.6. as full compliance with
the divine will insact and life; comp. on Gal. ili. 6. Paul however has not
made an unwarrantable use of the passage for his purpose (Riickert), but has
really understood δικαιοσύνη in the dogmatic sense, which he was justified in
doing since the imputation of faith as NPT¥ was essentially the same judi-
cial act which takes place at the justification of Christians. This divine
act began with Abraham, the father of the faithful, and was not essentially
different in the case of later believers. Even in the πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ on the
part of Abraham Paul has rightly discerned nothing substantially different
from the Christian πίστις (compare Delitzsch on Gen. /.c.), since Abraham’s
faith had reference to the divine promise, and indeed to the promise which
he, the man trusted by God and enlightened by God, recognized as that
which embraced in it the future Messiah (John viii. 56). Tholuck, because
the promise was a promise of grace, comes merely to the unsatisfactory view
of “ἃ virtual parallel also with the object of the justifying faith of Chris-
tians.” Still less (in opposition to Neander and others) can the explanation
of the subjective nature of faith in general, without the addition of its spe-
cific object (Christ), suffice for the conception of Abraham as the father of all
believing in Christ ; since in that case there would only have been present

1 Pind. Jsthm. y. 65; Plut. Ages. 31.

CHAP. Iv., 4, 5. ΤῸ

in him a pre-formation of faith as respects its psychological quality gener-
ally, and not also in respect of its subject-matter, which is nevertheless the
specific and distinguishing point in the case of justifying faith. — We may
add that our passage, since it expresses not a (mediate) isswing of right-
eousness from faith, but the imputation of the latter, serves as a proof of
justification being an actus forensis ; and what the Catholic expositors
(including even Reithmayr and Maier) advance to the contrary is a pure
subjective addition to the text." | It is well said by Erasmus : that is im-
puted, ‘‘ quod re persolutum non est, sed tamen ex imputantis benignitate pro
soluto habetur.” 2 Instead of the καί in the LXX., Paul, in order to put the
ἐπίστ. with all weight in the foreground, has used δέ, which does not other-
wise belong to the connection of our passage. — εἰς dix.] Comp. 11. 26. [See
Note XXXIX. p. 174.]—On the passive ἐλογίσϑη see Bernhardy, p. 341 ;
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 105.

Vv. 4, 5. These verses now supply an illustration of ver. 3 in two general
contrasted relations, from the application of which—left to the reader—to the
case of Abraham the non-co-operation of works (the χωρὶς ἔργων, ver. 6) in
the case of the latter’s justification could not but be clear. — δέ] is the sim-
ple μεταβατικόν. --- τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ] to the worker, here, as the contrast shows,
with the pregnant sense : to him who is active in works, of whom the épya
are characteristic. Luther aptly says: ‘‘ who deals in works.” —6 μισϑός]
i.e. the corresponding wages (comp. ii. 29), justa merces. The opposite :
ἡ δίκη, merita poena; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. 1. 8, 90. --- οὐ λογίζ. κατὰ
χάριν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα] [See Note XL. p. 175.] Comp. Thue. ii. 40, 4:
οὐκ ἐς χάριν ἀλλ᾽ ἐς ὀφείλημα τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀποδώσων. The stress of the contrast
lies on «. χάρ. and κ. ὀφείλ., not in the first part on λογίζεται (Hofmann),
which is merely the verb of the Scripture quotation in ver. 3, repeated for
the purpose of annexing to it the contrast that serves for its illustration.
Not grace but debt is the regulative standard, according to which his wages
are awarded to such an one ; the latter are not merces gratiae, but merces
debiti. As in Abraham’s case an imputation κατὰ χάριν took place (which
Paul assumes as self-evident from ver. 3) he could not be on ἐργαζόμενος ; the
case of imputation which occured in relation to him is, on the contrary, to be
referred to the opposite category which follows : but to him that worketh not,
but believeth on Him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as right-
eousness. Looking to the exact parallel of vv. 4 and 5, the unity of the cate-
gory of both propositions must be maintained ; and ver. 5 is not to be re-
garded as an application of ver. 4 to the case of Abraham (Reiche), but as
likewise a locus communis, under which it is left to the reader to classify the
case of Abraham in accordance with the above testimony of Scripture.
Hence we cannot say with Reiche : ‘the μὴ ἐργαζόμενος and ἀσεβής is Abra-
ham.”* On the contrary, both are to be kept perfectly general, and ἀσεβής

1 Not even with the exception of Déllinger ness. Comp. however on i. 17, note.
(Christenth τι. K. p. 188, ed. 2), who says that 2 Comp. also Philippi im Joc., and Hoele-
God accounts the principle of the new free mann, de justitiae ex fide ambabus in V. T.
obedience (the faith) as already the whole ser- sedibus, 1867, p. 8 ff.
vice to be rendered, as the finished righteous- 3 ἀσεβής in his view is an allusion to the

158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS,

is not even to be weakened as equivalent to ἄδικος, but has been purposely
selected (comp Vv. 6), in order to set forth the saving power of faith? by as
strong a contrast as possible to δικαιοῦντα. --- ΟΠ. πιστεύειν ἐπί τινα, expressing
faith in its direction towards some one, comp. ver. 24; Acts ix. 42, xi. 17;
Wisd. xii. 2.

Vv. 6-8. Accordance (καθάπερ) of ver. 5 with an assertion of David, ‘that
great and revered Messianic authority. That it is only what is said in ver.
5 that is to be vouched by David’s testimony, and consequently that the
quotation forms only an accessory element in the argument, appears from its
being annexed by καθάπερ, from the clear intended relation in which ᾧ ὁ
Θεὸς Aoy. dix. appears to Aoy. ἡ. πίστ. avr. εἰς dix. Ver. 5, as well as χωρὶς ἔργων
to τῷ μὴ ἐργαζ. in the same verse, and from the fact that Paul immediately,
in ver. 9, returns to Abraham. Vv. 6-8 cannot therefore be regarded as a
second example of justification from the O. T. (Reiche and many others), or
even as the starting-point of the reply to the question of ver. 1 (Hofmann).
This is forbidden by the proper conception of νόμος in 111. 31, in accordance
with which Paul could only employ an example from the daw : and such an
example was that of Abraham, Gen. xv., but not that of David. —iéye τ.
μακαρ.} asserts the congratulation ; μακαρισμός 065 not mean Olessedness, not
even in Gal. iv. 15, see in loc.?—doyiterar δικαιοσύνην] Here δικαιοσύνην is
conceived directly as that, which God reckons to man as his moral status.
The expression λογίζεσθαί τινί ἁμαρτίαν is perfectly analogous. In the classics
λογίζεσθαί τινί τι is also frequently met with. — γωρὶς ἔργων] belongs to
λογίζεται. For, as David represents the λογίζεσθαι δικαιοσύνην as the forgive-
ness of sins, it must be conceived by him as ensuing without any participa-
tion (111. 21) of meritorious 1007}8. ---- μακάριοι κ.τ.}.}] Ps. xxxii. 1, 2 exactly
after the LX X. — ἐπεκαλύφθ. The amnesty under the figure of the covering
over of sin. Comp. Augustine on Ps. l.c., ‘‘Si texit Deus peccata, noluit
animadvertere ; si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire.”” Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8.—
ov μὴ λογίσηται) will certainly not impute. It refers to the future generally,
without more precise definition,* not specially to the jinal judgment (de
Wette).

Vv. 9, 10. From the connection (καθάπερ, ver. 6) of this Davidic μακαρισ-
μός With what had previously been adduced, vv. 3-5, regarding Abraham,

earlier idolatry of Abraham, reported by
Philo, Josephus, and Maimonides, on the
ground of Joshua xxiy. 2. This was also
the view of Grotius, Wetstein, Cramer,

Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and Koppe; comp. ἢ

also Dollinger, Christenth u. K. Ὁ. 197, ed.
2. The rabbins have a different tradition,
to the effect that Abraham demolished the
idols of his father Terah, etc. ; see EHisen-
menger, evtdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 490 ff., 941.

1 Consequently subjective faith is meant,
not its objective ground, the righteousness
of Christ, i.e. according to the Form. Conc.
p. 884 f., the active and passive obedience of
Christ, which is ‘‘applied and appropriated”
to us through faith. The merit of Christ al-

ways remains the causa meritoria, to which
we are indebted for the imputation of our
faith. But the apprehensio Christi, which is
the essence of justifying faith, must not be
made equivalent to the apprehensus Christus
(Calovius; comp. Philippi). The former
is the subjective, which is imputed; the
latter the objective, on account of which the
imputation by God takes place. The For-
mula Concordiae in this point goes ulira quod
scriptum est.

2 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 591 D; Aristot. Rhet.
i. 9, 4.

3 Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. C. 858; Hartung,
Partikell, I, p. 156 f.

CHAP: IV., Ll. 159

it is now inferred (οὖν) that this declaration of blessedness affects, not the
circumcised as such, but also the uncircumcised [See Note XLI. p. 175] ; for
Abraham in fact, as an wneirewmcised person, was included among those
pronounced blessed by David. — ἐπὶ τ. repit.] The verb obviously to be sup-
plied is most simply conceived as ἐστέ (the μακαρισμός extends to etc. ; comp.
ii. 9; Acts iv. 33 et al.). Less natural is λέγεται from ver. 6 (Fritzsche) ;
and πίπτει (Theophylact, Bos) is arbitrary, as is also ἦλθεν (Oecumenius), and
ἔρχεται (Olshausen). Comp. ver. 13, and see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 120 f.
[E. T. 136 f.]. — ἐπὶ τ. περιτ. x.7.4.] to the cireumeised, or also to the uncirewm-
cised ὃ The καί shows that the previous ἐπὲ τ. zepit. is conceived as exclusive,
consequently without a μόνον. ---- λέγομεν γάρ x.t.2.] In saying this, Paul can-
not wish first to explain, quite superfluously, how he comes to put such ques-
tions (Hofmann), but, as is indicated by λέγομεν, which lays down a prop-
osition as premiss to the argument that follows, he enters on the proof (yap)
from the history of Abraham for the καὶ ἐπὶ τ. ἀκροβ. which is conceived as
affirmed. The present denotes the assertion pointing back to ver. 3 as con-
tinuing : for our assertion, our proposition is, etc. The plural assumes the
assent of the readers. The emphasis however is not on τῷ ’Afp. (Fritzsche,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Philippi, and others), which Paul
would have made apparent by the position of the words ὅτι τῷ ’Afip. ἐλογίσθη 5
nor on ἐλογίσθη, which in that case would necessarily have a pregnant mean-
ing not indicated in the whole connection (as a pure act of grace, indepen-
dent of external conditions) ; but on ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην (and thus pri-
marily on πίστις brought together at the end, by which the import of ver. ὃ,
ἐπίστευσε . . . . δικαιοσύνην, is recapitulated. — πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη) The prop-
osition, that to Abraham, etc., is certain ; consequently the point at issue is
the question quomodo, viz. under what cirewmstances as to status (whether in
his circumcision, or whilst he was still uncircumcised) that imputation of
his faith to him for righteousness took place.’ Hofmann places the first
mark of interrogation after πῶς οὖν, so that the second question is supposed
to begin with ἐλογίσθη. But without sufficient ground, and contrary to the
usage elsewhere of the interrogative πῶς by Paul, who has often put τί οὖν
thus without a verb, but never πῶς οὖν. We should in such case have to un-
derstand ἐλογίσθη ; but this word, according to the usual punctuation, is
already present, and does not therefore need to be supplied. — οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀκροβ.] scil. ὄντι. The imputation in question took place as early as
Gen. xv. ; circumcision not till Gen. xvii. ; the former at least fourteen
years earlier.

Ver. 11. [See Note XLII. p. 176.] An amplification of the οὐκ ἐν repir.,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀκροβ. viewed as to its historical bearings, showing namely the re-
lation of Abraham’s circumcision to his δικαιοσύνη, and therefore only to be
separated by a comma from ver. 10. ‘‘ And he received a sign of cirewmeision
as seal (external confirmation, 1 Cor. ix. 2, and see on John iii. 33) of the
righteousness of faith (obtained through faith, vv. 3, 5), which he had in un-

1 Respecting the form of the discourse, ma, cujus altera parte rejecta alteram
Erasmus aptly observes: ‘‘ Praeter interro- evincit. Nullum enim argumentandi genus
gationis gratiam multum lucisaddit dilem- _ vel apertius vel violentius.”

100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS,

circumcision.” That τῆς ἐν τ. ἀκροβ. is not to be connected with δικαιοσ.
(Riickert, Reiche) is plain from the following context (πιστευόντων dv ἀκρο-
βυστίας ver. 11, and τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβ. πίστεως ver. 12). The genitive περιτομῆς
is usually taken as that of apposition: the sign consisting in circumeision.
But in that case the article could not be omitted before σημεῖον (the absence
of it drove van Hengel to the reading περιτομῆν, which Hofmann also pre-
fers),' since the concrete, historically definite sign would here be meant
(compare 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. ii. 14 eal.). Itis therefore to be rendered :
And ὦ sign, which took place through cireumeision, a signature which was
given to him in the fact that he was circumcised, he received as seal, etc.
The genitive is thus to be taken simply as completing the notion of σημεῖον, 4.e.
as defining it more precisely as respects its modal expression. Observe at the
same time the dislocation in the order of the words, which brings into em-
phatic relief the idea of the σημεῖον. According to Gen. xi. 17 circumcision
was the sign of the covenant? which God made with Abraham. But with
correct dogmatic consistency Paul represents it as the significant mark
which had been the seal of the righteousness by faith, since in that covenant
what God promised was the Messianic κληρονομία (Gen. xv. 5, 18), and
Abraham on his part rendered the faith (Gen. xv. 6) which God imputed to
him for righteousness. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν k.t.4.] im order that he might be,
ete., contains the divinely appointed aim of the σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτ. k.T.A.
This telic rendering is grammatically necessary (see oni. 20), as more in
keeping with the biblical view * and with the importance of the matter,
than the ecbatic explanation καὶ οὕτως ἐγένετο πατήρ, Which has been justly
abandoned of late. — πατέρα πάντων τῶν riot. δ ἀκροβ.1 The essence of this
spiritual fatherhood is the identity of the relation forming the basis of the
sacred historical connection of all believers with the patriarch without in-
tervention of circumcision—a relation which began with Abraham justified
through faith whilst still uncircumcised. Thus the Jewish conception of
the national-theocratic childship of Abraham is elevated and enlarged by
Paul (comp. Matt. iii. 9; John viii. 37, 39), into the idea of the purely
spiritual-theocratic childship, which embraces, not Jews and proselytes as
such, but the believers as such—all uncircumcised who believe, and (ver. 12)
the believing circumcised. For Abraham’s righteousness through faith was
attained, when as yet there was no distinction between circumcised and un-
circumcised ; and to this mode of becoming just before God, independent
of external conditions, Christianity by its δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως leads back

1 Hofmannexplains: and (8 ὦ sign he re-
ceived circumcision, as seal (apposition to
one.) In that case περιτομήν must have had
the article (John vii. 22; otherwise in ver.
23). For to take λαμβάνειν περιτομήν as
equivalent to περιτέμνεσϑαι is forbidden by
σημεῖον, With which the περιτομή can be cor-
relative only as asubstantive conception.

2 Τῇ the Talmud also it is presented as
the sign and seal of the covenant. See
Schoettgen and Wetstein. To the formula-

ty of circumcision belonged the words:
“ Benedictus sit, qui sanctificat dilectum ab
utero, et signum (KS) posuit in arne, et
filios suos sigillavit (DNM) stgno foederis
sancti." Berachoth ἢ. 13, 1.

36 γὰρ τῶν ὅλων ϑεὸς προειδὼς ws Peds, ws
ἕνα λαὸν ἐξ ἐϑνῶν καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀϑροίσει καὶ διὰ
πίστεως αὐτοῖς τὴν σωτηρίαν παρέξει, ἐν τῷ πα-
τριάρχῃ ABp. ἀμφότερα προδιέγραψε, Theodo-
ret.

CHAP, Iv., 12. 161
again, and continues it. — dv ἀκροβ.] with foreskin, although they are un-
circumcised.’ — εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι x.t.2.] is taken by many, including Tholuck
and Philippi, as a parenthetical illustration of εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα K.T.A.
But as we can attach εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι κιτ.λ. Without violence or obscurity to
πιστευόντων, there is no necessity for the assumption of a parenthesis (which
is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and
Hofmann). Nevertheless εἰς τὸ λογισθ. is not : who believe on the fact, that
to them also will be imputed (Hofmann), for the object of faith is never ex-
pressed by εἰς with a substantival infinitive ;? but, quite in accordance with
the telic sense of this form of expression (as in the εἰς τὸ εἶναι previously) :
who believe (on Christ) in order that (according to the divine final purpose
ruling therein) to them also, ete. —xai αὐτοῖς] to them also, as to Abraham
himself ; τὴν δικαιοσύνην expresses the righteousness which is under dis-
cussion, that of faith.

Ver. 12. The construction carries onward the foregoing πατέρα πάντων
and father’ of circumcision, i.e. father of cireumcised persons (not of all
circumcised, hence without the article). And in order to express to what
circumcised persons this spiritual fatherhood of Abraham belongs, Paul adds,
by way of more precise definition : for those (dativus commodi, comp. Rev.
xxi. 7; Luke vii. 12) who are not merely circumcised (comp. ii. 8), but also
walk in the footsteps, etc. With this rendering (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others ; including Ammon,
Béhme, Tholuck, Klee, Riickert, Benecke, Reiche, Gléckler, K6llner, de
Wette, Philippi, and Winer) it must be admitted (against Reiche and K6llner,
whose observations do not justify the article) that τοῖς is erroneously repeated
before στοιχοῦσι. [See Note XLIII. p. 176.] Paul wnsuitably continues
with ἀλλὰ καί, just as if he had previously written an οὐ μόνον τοῖς. AS any
other rendering is wholly inadmissible, and as καὶ τοῖς cannot be an inver-
sion for τοῖς καί (Mehring), we are driven to the assumption of that errone-
ous insertion of the article, as a negligence of expression. The expression
in Phil. i. 29 (in opposition to Fritzsche) would be of the same nature only .
in the event of Paul having written τοῖς.
. τοῖς στοιχοῦσι k.7.A. Others take τοῖς οὐκ for οὐ τοῖς (as 387,
80, Syr. Arr. Vulg. Slav. and several Fathers read as an emendation), thus
making a distinction to be drawn here not between merely circumcised and
unbelieving Jews, but between Jews and Gentiles (ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς κ.τ.}.). So
Theodoret, Luther, Castalio, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader (Grotius is doubt-
ful). But such an inversion is as unnatural (comp. ver. 16) as it is unpre-
cedented (it is an error to refer to ii. 27; 1 Thess. i. 8) ; and how strange
it would be, if Paul should have once more brought forward the fatherhood

ἘΠΩ͂Ν Σ

«ον οὗ μόνον τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς,

ἀλλὰ καὶ.

1 Comp. on ii. 27, Barnab. Lp. 13: τέϑεικα
σεπατέρα ἐϑνῶν τῶν πιστευόντων δι᾽ ἀκροβυστίας
τῷ κυρίῳ.

2 Not even in ver. 18. And Acts xv. 11, to
which Hofmann appeals as an analogous
passage, tells directly against him, because
there the construction of the infinitive ob-
tains in the usual way, that the subject of the

governing verd is understood, as a matter of
course, with the infinitive. Comp. Hofmann
himself above on ver. 1 ; Kriiger, ὃ 55, 4, 1.
Besides the result, according to Hofmann’s
interpretation, would be an awkward
thought, not in keeping with the faith of
Abraham.

162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

as to the believing Gentiles, but should have left that relating to the Jews

altogether without conditioning definition! Hofmann (comp. also his
Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 82) understands περιτομῆς, after the analogy of ὁ Θεὸς τῆς
δόξης K.T.A., as the genitive of quality (‘‘a father, whose fatherhood is to be
designated according to cirewmeisedness ;” as a circumcised person he has begot-
ten Isaac, etc.) ; then assumes in the case of τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον the
suppressed antithesis to complete it, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ πίστεως ; and finally explains
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχ. aS a Supplementary addition, while he takes ἀλλὰ καὶ to
mean not but also, but also however. A hopeless misinterpretation ! For,
as genitive of quality, περιτομῆς must have had the article (comp. Acts vii.
2; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 17 αἷ.), and every reader must have understood περι-
τομῆς in conformity with πάντων κ.τ.}., ver. 11, as a specification whose father
Abraham further is. The reader could all the less mentally supply after
τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτ. a Suppressed contrast, since the expressed contrast follows im-
mediately with ἀλλὰ καί ; and for that reason, again, it could occur to no one
to understand this ἀλλὰ καί in any other sense than elsewhere after negations,
namely, but also, not also however. (How inappropriate is Hofmann’s cita-
tion of Luke xxiv. 22, where no negation at all precedes !) Wieseler’s at-
tempt (in Herzog’s Hncyklop. XX. p. 592) is also untenable, since he imports
into τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτ. μόνον the sense : ‘‘ who do not make circumcision the ev-
clusive condition of salvation,” and likewise renders ἀλλὰ καί also however ; thus
making Paul indicate (1) the Jewish Christians who were not rigid partisans
of the law (such as were to be found in Palestine especially), and (2) the
Pauline Jewish Christians. — τοῖς ἔχνεσι x.7.A.] Who so walk (see on Gal. v.
25) that they follow the footsteps which Abraham has left behind through his
faith manifested in his uncircumcised condition, 7.e. who are believers after
the type of the uncircumcised Abraham, The dative, commonly taken as
local, is more correctly, in keeping with the other passages in which Paul
uses the dative with στοιχεῖν (Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16 ; Phil. iii. 16), interpret-
ed in the sense of the norm.

Ver. 13. Ground assigned for the foregoing, from εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα
onwards. ‘‘The father of all believing Gentiles and Jews ;” for it was
not the law, but the righteousness of faith, that procured for Abraham or his
seed the promise of possessing the world. [See Note XLIV. p. 177.] Had
the law been the agent in procuring that promise, then the Jews, as posses-
sors of the law, would be the children of Abraham who should receive what
was promised ; as it is, however, it must be the believers, no matter whether
Jews or Gentiles, since not the law has been at work, but on the contrary
the righteousness of faith. — διὰ νόμου] [See Note XLV. p. 177] through the
agency of the law, is not to be arbitrarily limited (Piscator, Calovius,
and others : per justitiam legis ; Pareus and others : per opera legis) ; for,
as the Mosaic law’ was not yet even in existence, it could in no way procure
the promise. Hence it is not to be rendered with Grotius : ‘‘ sb conditione
observandi legem Mosis,” because διὰ δικαίοσ. πίστ. does not admit of a cor-

1 For to this διὰ νόμου must be referred brought under the wider conception of the
(see ver. 14 ff.) not to circumcision, which is law (Mehring),

CHAP. Iv., 138. 163

responding interpretation. — ἡ ἐπαγγελία] scil. ἐστι. The supplying of this
(usually : ἐγένετο) is quite sufficient ; comp. on ver. 9. The relation is real-
ized as present. — ἢ τῷ σπέρμ. αὐτοῦ] neither to Abraham nor to his seed, ete.
With ἢ τῷ σπέρμ. ait. Paul takes for granted that the history of the promise
in question is known ; and whoare meant by the σπέρμα under the Messianic
reference of the promise cannot, according to the context (see especially ver.
11), be doubtful, namely the believers, who are the spiritual posterity of
Abraham (ix. 6 ff.; Gal. iv. 22 ff.); not Christ according to Gal. iii. 16
(Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Olshausen); but also not the descendants of
Abraham proper (van Hengel). —70 κληρ. ait. εἶναι κόσμου] Epexegesis of ἡ
ἐπαγγελία." The αὐτόν, referring to Abraham, is so put not because ἢ τ. σπ.
αὐτοῦ is only incidentally introduced (Riickert), but because Abraham is
regarded as at once the father and representative of his σπέρμα included
with him in the promise. — κόσμου] The inheritance of the land of Canaan,
which God promised to Abraham for himself and his posterity (Gen. xii. 7,
xiil. 14, 15, xv: 18, xvii. 8, xxii. 17 ; comp. xxvi. 3 ; Ex. vi. 4), was in the
Jewish Christology taken to mean the universal dominion of the Messianic the-
ocracy, Which was typically pointed at in these passages from Genesis.* The
idea of Messianic sovereignty over the world, however, which lies at the bot-
tom of this Jewish particularistic conception, and which the prophets in-
vested with a halo of glory,* is in the N. T. not done away, but divested of
its Judaistic conception, and raised into a Christological truth, already
presented by Christ Himself (comp. Matt. v. 5) though in allegoric form
(Matth. xix. 28 ff.; Luke xxii. 30; Matt. xxv. 21). Its necessity lies in
the universal dominion to which Christ Himself is exalted (Matt. xxviii. 18 ;
John xvii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 9 ff.; Eph. iv. 10 a/.), and in the glorious fellowship
of His believers with Him. Now as the idea of this government of the
world, which Christ exercises, and in which His believers (the spiritual
children of Abraham) are one day to participate, was undeniably also the
ideal of Paul (viii. 17 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12), it is arbitrary to
take κόσμου here otherwise than generally, and either to limit it to the sphere
of earth (Koppe, Kéllner, Maier), or to explain it as relating to the dominion
of the Jews over the Gentile world (van Hengel), or the reception of all peo-
ples into the Messianic kingdom (Beza, Estius, and others) or Messianic bliss
generally (Wetstein, Flatt, comp. Benecke aud Gléckler), or the spiritual
dominion of the world (Baumgarten-Crusius), as even Hengstenberg does :
‘“the world is spiritually conquered by Abraham and his seed ” (Christol. 1.
p. 49). The interpretation which takes it to mean the extension of the
spiritual fatherhood over all nations (Mehring) would only be possible in the
absence of ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, and would likewise be set aside by the firmly
established historical notion of the ΤΠ). The κληρονόμον εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου Of
believers is realized in the new glorious world (ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, Matt.
xix. 28, comp. Rom. viii. 18, 2 Pet. iii. 18) after the Parousia ; hence the
Messianic kingdom itself and all its δόξα, as the completed possession of

1 See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 518, and ad Xen. dum dedit coelum et terram,” Tanchuma, p.
Anab. ii. 5, 22. 165, 1, and see Wetstein.
2“ Abrahamo patri meo Deus possiden- 3 Comp. Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 225 ff.

104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

salvation promised to believers, is designated by the theocratic technical
term κληρονομία (see on Gal. 111. 18). — διὰ dix. rior. ] Since the νόμος was not
the procurer of the promise, but Abraham was righteous through faith (ver.
3), the δικαιοσύνη πίστεως must necessarily have been that which procured the
promise (moved God to grant it), See ver. 14. It is true that the promise
in question was given to Abraham prior to his justification by faith (Gen. xii.
7, ΧΙ. 14 f.); but it was renewed to him subsequently (xv. 18, xvii. 8); hence
we must assume that here Paul had only these latter passages in view.

Vv. 14-17. Proof of the antithesis ov διὰ νόμου. . . . ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ. I Ver.
-13, conducted not historically (as in Gal. ii. 13 ff.), but dogmatically, ὦ
priori, from the nature of the law, from which results the opposite of the
latter, the πίστις, as cause of the κληρονομία.

Ver. 14. Here also νόμος is not (as Flatt and others take it) the moral law
(to which however the saying may certainly be applied), but the law of
Moses, viewed in excluding antithesis to the πίστις. By οἱ ἐκ νόμου, ‘‘ those
of the law” (Luther), are meant those who belong to the law, are as such
subjected to it ; consequently the Jews at all events, but just so far as they
are not believers, not belonging to the ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Gal. yi. 16). The
opposite : οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, 111. 26, Gal. 111, 7. That they wish to attain to the
κληρονομία by the way of the law, is true in itself, but is not expressed in the
mere οἱ ἐκ νόμου (in opposition to Hofmann). —kexévwrar ἡ πίστις k.t.2.] then
faith is made void and the promise done away, i.e. faith is thereby rendered
inoperative and the promise of no effect. If it be true that to be subject to
the law is the condition of obtaining the possession of the world, nothing
further can be said either of a saving power of faith (comp. 1 Cor. i. 17), or
of the validity of the promise (comp. 111. 31, Gal. iii. 17). And why not ?
Because (ver. 15) the law, to which in accordance with that protasis the
κληρονομία would be appended, has an operation so entirely opposed to the
essence of faith (which trusts in the divine χάρις) and of the promise (which
is an emanation from this χάρις), (comp. ver. 16), that it brings about the
divine wrath, since its result is transgression. On this ground (διὰ τοῦτο, ver.
16) because the law worketh wrath, its relation to the κληρονομία, laid down
in ver. 14, cannot exist ; butron the contrary the latter must proceed from
faith that it may be according to grace, etc., ver. 16.—The πίστις is the
Christian saving faith, of which Abraham’s faith was the beginning and
type, and the ἐπαγγελία is the Divine promise of the κληρονομία, given to
Abraham and his seed, ver. 13.

Ver. 15. On the connection see above. The assigning of a reason (yap)
has reference to the previous κεκένωται ἡ πίστις K. KaTHpY. ἡ. Etayy., Which are
closely connected (see ver. 16), and not merely to the κατήργ. ἡ éxayy. (Chry-
sostom, Fritzsche, Mehring, and others). The law produces wrath. It is the
divine wrath that is meant, not any sort of hwman wrath (against the judg-
ment of God, as Melanchthon thought). Unpropitiated, it issues forth on
the day of judgment, ii. 5 ff., iii. 5, ix. 22; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6 5 Col. iii. 6 al.;
Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 16 ; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p. 826 f.— οὗ yap οὐκ
ἔστι νόμος κ.τ.}.1 [See Note XLVI. p. 177.] Proof of the proposition that
the law worketh wrath: jor where the law is not, there is not even (οὐδέ)

CHAP, TV., 16, 17%. 165

transgression, namely, which excites the wrath of God (the Lawgiver). This
short, terse and striking proef—which is not, any more than the three
previous propositions introduced by γάρ, to be reduced to a ‘‘ justifying
explanation” (Hofmann), or to be weakened by taking οὐδέ to mean ‘‘ just as
little’ (Hofmann)—proceeds ὦ causa ad effectum ; where the cause is want-
ing (namely, παράβασις), there can be no mention of the effect (ὀργή). This
negative form of the probative proposition includes—in accordance with the
doctrine of the Apostle elsewhere regarding the relation of the law to the
human ἐπιθυμία (Rom. vii. 7 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 56; Gal. 111. 19 al.), which is
kindled on occasion of the law by the power of sin which exists in man—
the positive counterpart, that, where the law is, there is also transgression.
Paul however expresses himself negatively, because in his mind the negative
thought that the fulfilment of the promise is not dependent on the law still
preponderates ; and he will not enter into closer analysis of the positive
side of it—viz., that faith is the condition—until the sequel, ver. 16 ff.
Observe moreover that he has not written οὐδὲ ἁμαρτία, which he could not
assert (ver. 13), but οὐδέ παράβασις, as the specific designation of the ἁμαρτία
in relation to the Jaw, which was the precise point here in question. Comp.
li. 28, 25, 27, v. 14; Gal. 11. 18, 111. 19. Sins without positive law (ver. 13)
are likewise, and indeed on account of the natural law, ii. 14, objects of the
divine wrath (see i. 18 ff.; Eph. ii. 3); but sins against a given law are, in
virtue of their thereby definite quality of transgression, so specifically and
specially provocative of wrath in God, that Paul could relatively even deny
the imputation of sin when the law was non-existent. See on ver. 13.

Ver. 16 f. Διὰ τοῦτο] Inference from ver. 15, consequently from the
wrath-operating nature of the law, on account of which it is so utterly in-
capable of being the condition of the κληρονομία, that the latter must on the
contrary result from the opposite of the law—from faith, etc. Comp. on
ver. 14 f. This conclusion is so evident and pertinent that it required only
the incomplete, but thus all the more striking expression : ‘ therefore of
Suith, in order that according to grace,” to the end that, etc. — ἐκ πίστεως]
scil. οἱ κληρονόμοι εἰσί, according to ver. 14. The supplying, by Fritzsche and
others, of ἡ ἐπαγγελία γίνεται or ἐγένετο from ver. 13 is forbidden by the con-
trast in which ἐκ πίστ. stands to ἐκ νόμου, ver. 14. — ἵνα κατὰ χάριν] The pur-
pose of God in ἐκ πίστεως : ‘in order that they might be so by way of grace,”
not by way of merit. Comp. ver. 4 and δωρεάν 111. 24. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν
x.7.A.| contains now in turn the divine purpose,’ which prevails in the κατὰ
χάριν. They shall be heirs by way of grace ; and why by way of grace? In
order that the promise may be sure, i.e. may subsist in active validity as one
to be realized (the opposite of κατήργηται, ver. 14) for the collective posterity
(i.e. for all believers, see v. 11, 18), not for those alone, who are such out of the
law (not solely for believers who have become so out of the legal bond of
Judaism), but also for those who ure such out of the faith of Abraham,’ i.e.

1 Here also the peculiar deeper scope of 2 ἐν riot. ᾿Αβραάμ. goes together (in oppo-
the view given is often left unnoticed, and sition to Fritzsche, who has conceived the
cis τὸ εἶναι 15 taken as inference; so that, ete. σπέρματι to be supplied as before ’ABp., and
See on the other hand on i. 20, made the genitive ᾿Αβραάμ dependent on it),

100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

whose Abrahamic kinship is based on Abraham’s faith, the uncircumcised
believers.! If anything else than χάρις (such as ὀφείλημα) were the reason
determining God to confer the κληρονομία, then both halves of the σπέρμα, in
their legal imperfection, would be unsecured with respect to the promise.
As it is, however, believing Jews as also believing Gentiles have in the
divine χάρις the same guarantee that the κληρονομία shall be imparted to
them ἐκ πίστεως. --- ὅς ἐστι Twat. πάντ. ἡμῶν] reiterated (comp. vv. 11, 12)
solemn setting forth of the fatherhood of Abraham for all (πάντων) believers
(ἡμῶν), which was indeed the pith and fundamental idea of the entire argu-
ment (since ver. 9) ; there is therefore no new point raised here (Hofmann),
but this fatherhood of the patriarchin the history of salvation, already
clearly laid down, is summarily expressed afresh, in order (ver. 17), after
the insertion of a testimony from Scripture, to present it, by means of
κατέναντι ov k.T.4., in its holy, divine guarantee and dignity. — ὅτε πατέρα
πολλῶν x.T.A.| Gen. xvii. 5, closely after the LXX.; therefore ὅτι, for, which
in the original text specifies the reason of the name Abraham, is repeated
by Paul without any special bearing on his connection, simply as forming
part of the words of Scripture. — πατέρα πολλῶν é6v.] Aptly explained, in
the sense of the Apostle, by Chrysostom and Theophylact : ob κατὰ φυσικὴν
In this spiritual sense—which the
passage of Scripture expresses typically—he is constituted by God as father
of many nations (in so far, namely, as all believers from among the Jews
and all Gentile peoples are to be, in the history of salvation, his spiritual
σπέρμα), i.e. appointed, and thus made so.* Even the original text cannot
have meant by 0°14 merely the twelve tribes of Israel (Hofmann). It means
the posterity of Abraham, in so far as Gentile peoples also shall be sub-
jected to it. The Israelite tribes would be Ὁ... ---- κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστ. Θεοῦ]
is connected, after the parenthesis (καθὼς . . . . ce), With ὃς ἐστε πατὴρ πάντ.
ἡμῶν. To get rid of the parenthesis by supposing a suppressed intervening
thought (Philippi), or an asyndeton, as if it were καὶ κατέναντι k.T.A. (Van
Hengel), is a harsh and arbitrary course ; while it is impossible to regard
κατέναντι κ.τ.2. as explanation of the καθὼς γέγραπται (Hofmann), because
καθὼς yéyp. can only be taken as the quite common (occurring thirteen times
in our Epistle) simple formula for quoting a Scripture proof, and not as:
‘in harmony with the Scripture passage.” —xarévavte, equivalent to the
classical κατεναντίον, means over against (Mark xi. 2, xii. 41 ; Luke xix. 30),
i.é. here: in presence of (κατενώπιον), coram, as after the Heb. frequently in
the LXX. and Apocrypha.* The attraction is to be resolved into :
τοῦ Θεοῦ, κατέναντι ov ἐπίστευσε : coram Deo, coram quo credidit.4 Quite anal-

΄ ᾿ S " ᾿ , ,
συγγένειαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οἰκείωσιν πίστεως.

κατέναντι

since it is not Jews and Christians, but Jew-
ish and Gentile believers who are placed side
by side, and in the latter the faith of Adra-
ham (comp. ver. 10) is the characteristic.

1 Theophylact : παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι, τουτέστι
πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν" οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐκ νόμου,
τουτέστι τοῖς ἐμπεριτόμοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἀκρο-
βύστοις, οἵτινές εἰσι σπέρμα ᾿Αβραὰμ. ἐκ πίστεως
αὐτῷ γενηϑέντες.

2 Compare Heb. i. 2; 1 Mace. x. 65, xiv. 34;
Hom. Od. xv. 258, 11. vi. 800; Plat. Theaet.
p. 169 E; Pind. OJ. xiii. 21.

8. See Biel and Schleusner.

4 The coram, in presence of, is neither to
be explained ad exemplum (Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact and others), nor
“according to the will’ (Reiche, Krehl and
others), nor “according to the judgment”

CHAP. Iv.,.17. 167
ogous are such passages as Luke i. 4, wept ὧν κατὴ χήθης λόγων, Instead of περὶ
τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν katyy., Matt. vii. 2 al.’ So also rightly Philippi and Hof-
mann ;? comp. Miircker. The mode of resolving it adopted by most com-
mentators (Thomas Aquinas, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius,
Estius, and others ; also Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6llner, Fritzsche, .
Ewald, van Hengel, Buttmann) : κατέναντι Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσε, is at least at
variance with the wsval mode of attraction, since the attraction of the rela-
tive, which, not attracted, would stand in the dative, has no precedent in
the N. T., and even in Greek authors very seldom occurs. * Finally, the ex-
planation which takes κατέναντι οὗ as equivalent to κατέναντι τούτου, ὅτι, and
the latter as equivalent to ἀνθ᾽ οὗ, propterea quod, and in accordance with,
which Θεοῦ «.7-2. is then taken as genitive absolute (‘‘ whilst God, who quick-
eneth the dead, calleth also to that which is not, as though it were present,”
Mehring), is wrong just because κατέναντε has not the sense supposed, — τοῦ.
ζωοπ. τ. νεκροὺς, καὶ x.7.A.] Distinguishing quality of God as the Almighty,
selected with practical reference to the circumstances of Abraham (vv.
18-21) : ‘‘who quickeneth the dead and ealleth the non-evistent as though it
were,” and certainly, therefore, can quicken the decayed powers of procrea-
tion, and dispose of generations not yet in existence. A reference to the
offering of Isaac, whom God could make alive again (Erasmus, Grotius,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and Mangold), is so foreign to the connection that it
would have required definite indication. The ζωοποιεῖν τοὺς νεκρούς 18. a
formal attribute of the almighty God. 1 Sam. ii. ὁ ; Wisd. xvi. 13 ; Tob.
xiii. 2; comp. Deut. xxxii. 9. See also John: v5-21 ΣΦ Cor. i, ἢ: 1 "Tim.
vi. 13. Origen, Ambrosiaster, Anselm, erroneously hold that the νεκροί are,
spiritually dead, a view which the context must have rendered necessary +
comp. Olshausen, who holds that wor. and «ad. indicate typically the
spiritual awakening and the new birth ; also Ewald, who will have the ap-
plication made to the revivifying of the dead Gentiles into true Christians.
- καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα] 1.6. ‘who utters His disposing decree over that

(Riickert, Kéllner, Fritzsche, Maier, Um-
breit and others), nor ‘‘ vi atque potestate
divina” (Koppe), nor “before the omnis-
cience of God” (Olshausen), but is to be left
without any modifying explanation. Abra-
ham is realized as present, just as he stands,
πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν face to face with the God
who had appeared to him, and has become
a believer in conspectu Det. This vivid reali-
zation of the believing patriarch, as if he
were standing there as father of us all be-
fore the face of God, just as formerly in
that sacred moment of history, is a plastic
form of presentation which, inaptly con-
demned by Hofmann, quite accords with
the elevated and almost poetic strain of the
following words. It also fully warrants
the coupling of κατέναντι «.7.A. With ὃς ἐστι
πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν ; it is unnecessary to seek
a connection with ὅτε πατέρα... τέϑεικά σε,
either with Bengel, who compares Matt.

ix. 6,or with Philippi, who, thereby getting
rid of the parenthesis, inserts after τέϑεικά
σε the thought: “and as such he has been
appointed.”

1 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luce. Ὁ. 1775
Schmid in the Tvib. Zeitschr. 7. Theol. 1831,
2, p. 137 ff.; Winer, p. 155 f. [B. T. 164] ;
comp. on Acts xxi. 16.

2 Who, nevertheless, in consequence of
his incorrect view οἵ καϑὼς γέγραπται, pro-
fesses to illustrate the κατέναντι thus: ** At
that time, when he believed, he stood face to
face with God as Him who quickeneth the
dead, etc.; and by the fact, that God has
shown Himself to be just the same as Him
before whom he then stood, it has so come ta
pass, that he is now before Him, the Sather of
us all.”

3 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 5, Gramme
II. 2, p. 914.

108 _THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

which does not exist, equally as over the existing.” What a lofty expression of
all-commanding power! And how thoroughly in harmony with the then
position of Abraham ! For as he stood before God and believed (Gen. xv.

6), God had just showed to him the stars of heaven, with the promise οὕτως
ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα cov! So that God hereby issued his potent summons (so
shall it be!) to something that was not (the σπέρμα of Abraham) as though
it had been. This explanation (followed also by Riickert and Philippi) is
perfectly faithful to the sense of the words, and as muchin harmony with
the vividly realized situation of Abraham, as it is appropriate to the paral-
lelism ; for the latter is climactic, leading from the νεκροῖς to the τὰ μὴ dvra. |
καλεῖν like δ», does not here mean to name Hofmann, (comp. Loesner and
Benecke), which would refer to the name of father pronounced by God, and
have in view the divine knowledge, but on the contrary, correlative with the
mighty ζωοποιεῖν τ. vexp. (comp. δυνατός ver. 21), it denotes the call of the

Ruler, which He issues to that which is subject to His power. Comp. Ps.
1. 1; Is. xl. 26 ;* ὡς is the simple as of comparison. Parallels in point are
found in Philo, de Jos. p. 544 C, where it is said of the force of imagination,

that it pictures τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα ; and Artemidor. i. 53, p. 46, ed. Rigalt.

where it is said of the painter, that he represents τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. Paul
could also have, like Clement, Cor. 11. 1, used ra οὐκ ὄντα (the non-exist-

ent, Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 3), as the contradictory antithesis of τὰ ὄντα (comp.

also Plat. Rep. p. 476 E); but the negation is conceived subjectively, from

the standpoint of the subject who calls : he calls the things, which he knows
as non-existent, as if they were.? Still what Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 37 f.,

deduces from τὰ μὴ évra—that that which enters into historical existence was
not previously an absolute nothing, but an object of divine knowledge—is
based on the common conception of καλεῖν in the sense of creative activity,

which is erroneous. No doubt καλεῖν, as is well known, often denotes the
ereating call of God (Isa. xxii. 12, xli. 4, xIviii. 18 ; 2 Kings viii. 1 ; Wisd.

xi. 25; Philo, de creat. prine. Ὁ. 728 B, where τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν is further
defined by εἰς τὸ εἶναι ; comp. de Opif. p. 13 E). In this case we should
have to think by no means of the historical act of creation out of nothing
(Piscator, Estius and others), but rather, on account of the present participle,

either of the continuous creative activity (Kéllner), or (better still on ac-

count of the parallel of Cwor.) of an abiding characteristic of God generally,

from which no time is excluded. But this whole interpretation of καλεῖν is
set aside here by ὡς ὄντα. For ὡς cannot be taken for εἰς (Luther, Wolf,

and others), because an use so utterly isolated in the N. T. is in itself very im-

probable, and because, where ὡς stands in classic authors in the sense of εἰς, it

1 Quite contrary to the context Erasmus,
Ch. Schmid, Koppe ana Bohme take cadetvin
the dogmatic sense. And yet even Fritzsche
and Mangold have gone over to this ex-
planation: “ hominesnondum in lucem edi-
tos ad vitam aeternam invitat.”” Van Hengel
takes καλεῖν as arcessere, and τὰ μὴ ὄντα that
which is of no account (see on 1 Cor. i. 28), so
that the sense would be: ‘‘ quaecunque nul-

lius numeri sunt arcessivit (to the childship
of Abraham), quasi sint in pretio.” But this
peculiar interpretation of μὴ ὄντα and ὄντα
must have been specifically suggested by
the context, especially as it strips off the
whole poetical beauty of the expression.

2 Comp. Xen. Anabd. iv. 4, 15, and Kiihner
in loc. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278.

CHAP. IV., 19-21. 169

is only so used in reference to persons,’ or, at the most, where what is personal
is represented by neuter objects. Some desire ὡς ὄντα to be taken for ὡς ἐσό-
μενα (de Wette), or as a summary expression for εἰς τὸ εἶναι ὡς ὄντα (Reiche,
K6llner, Tholuck, de Wette, Bisping), but these expedients are arbitrary in
themselves, and, in the case of the latter especially—seeing that ὄντα would
have to be taken in the sense of the result, as only adjectives are elsewhere
used (see on Matt. xii. 43, and Breitenbach, ad. Xen. Oec. 4, '7)—é¢ would
only be superfluous and confusing.

Vv. 18-21. More particular setting forth of this faith of Abraham, ac-
cording to its lofty power and strength. Εἶδες πῶς τίθησι καὶ τὰ κωλύματα καὶ
τὴν ὑψηλὴν τοῦ δικαίου γνώμην πάντα ὑπερβαίνουσαν, Chrysostom.

Ver. 18. Ὃς] Parallel to the ὅς ἐστι «.7.2. ver. 10 ; therefore only a comma
or a colon need be put after ὡς ὄντα. --- ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι] on hope, is the basis of the
éxiot. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 10 ; frequent in Greek authors. See also Tit. i. 2.
Abraham’s faith was opposed to hope (παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα, frequent in classical
writers) in its objective reference, and yet not ἀνέλπιστος, but rather based on
hope in its subjective reference, —a significant oxymoron. — εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι k.7.A. |
Rightly Luther : in order that he might be. Comp. Riickert, Tholuck,
Philippi. It contains the end, ordained by God, of the érior., thus ex-
hibiting Abraham’s faith in its teleological connection with the divine de-
cree, and that in reference to the word of God, ver. 17 ; hence, it is less in
harmony with the context to take εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι x.t.A. as the purpose of
Abraham. Ver. 11, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν k.7.A. is quite analogous. Following
Beza, many writers (including even Reiche, K6llner, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Krehl, Mehring, Hofmann, take εἰς τὸ γεν. as the object of ézior.; quite
contrary to the usage of the N. T. ; see on ver. 11. Here, as in every case
previously, the object of faith (the divine promise) is quite self-evident.
The view which explains it of the consequence (B6hme, Flatt, Fritzsche,
following older writers) for καὶ οὕτως ἐγένετο, is linguistically erronéous (see
on i. 20), and quite at variance with the tenor of the discourse; for’ in vv.
19-21 the delineation of the faith itself is still continued, so that at this stage
the result (it is introduced in ver. 22) would be quite out of place. — κατὰ
τὸ eipnu.| belonging to γενέσθαι k.7.A., not to ἐπίστευσε (Hofmann, in accord-
ance with his incorrect view of εἰς τὸ .7.A.). —ottwc] What is meant by
this, Paul assumes to be familiar to his readers ; and therefore the corre-
sponding part is by no means wanting. Β' G and several Fathers (also Vulg.
ms.) have after cov the addition : ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἡ ἄμμος τῆς
θαλάσσης. The first half only is a proper gloss ; the καὶ ἡ ἄμ. τ. θαλ. does not
lie in the οὕτως, Gen. xv. 5, but is imported from Gen. xii. 16.

Vv. 19-21 are still dependent on ὅς, completing the description of the
believing Abraham : and (who), because he was not weak in faith, regarded not
his own dead body.* Theophylact has properly expressed the meiosis in μὴ

ἀσθ. : μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει, ἀλλ᾽ ἰσχυρὰν αὐτὴν ἔχων. By μή the ἀσθεν. is neg-

1 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 853; ῬΟΡΡο, αὐ dead. Therefore vevexp. without the article.
Thuc. ΤΠ. 1, p. 318 ff. Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 6,1; Stall-

2 See Doderlein, philolog. Beitr. Ὁ. 303 ff. baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 573 A.

3 i.e. his own body: which was one already

170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

atived from the point of view of the subject. Comp. on ver. 17. — οὐ
κατενόησε] [See Note XLVII. p. 178.] he did not fix his attention thereon.
Comp. Heb. iii. 1, x. 24 ; Luke xii. 24 ; Judith x. 14. This remark is no
historical blunder inconsistent with Gen. xvii. 17 (de Wette ; comp.
Riickert), but is quite in harmony with the account given in Gen. xv. 5, 6,
where, immediately after the divine promise οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου it is
said: καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Ap. τῷ Θεῷ. This (and not what is related in
*Gen. xvii. 17) is the fact which Paul here exhibits in greater detail, inas-
much as he depicts the καὶ ἐπίστευσε of Gen. 1.6.. in its strength at first neg-
atively (in the non-consideration of bodily obstacles) and then positively.
The immediately decided faith of Abraham in Gen. xv., to which Paul here
refers, is not inconsistent with the subsequent hesitation, Gen. xvii. (the
account of which, moreover, belongs to another author) ; the latter is a
wavering which may easily be understood from a psychological point of
view. Comp. the doubt of the Baptist as tothe Messiahship of Jesus, Matt.
xi. 2 ff. —vevexpwpévov and νέκρωσις conveying the idea of decrepitude with
reference to the powers of procreation and of conception respectively.
Comp. Heb. xi. 12; Kypke, II. p. 164. — ἑκατονταέτης x.7.4.] although so
advanced in years that he might naturally have regarded, etc., yet he did

not do so. The ποὺ is the circiter in approximate statements of number ;
Herod. i. 119; vii. 5; Diog. L. viii. 80. Comp. Xen. Oe. 17, 3. Not
used by Paul elsewhere. Abraham was then ninety-nine years old. See

Gen. xvii. 1, 17, xxi. 5. ‘*‘ Post Semum nemo centum annorum generasse
Gen. xi. legitur,”” Bengel.’—- Observe, as to καὶ τ. véx., that the negation ob
κατένοησε extends to both the objects of the sentence. Hofmann’s objection
to our reading,’? and his declaration that instead of καί we should expect
οὐδέ are erroneous.* The νέκρωσις is the deadness of the womb attested as
having already set in at Gen. xviii. 11. Was Sarah still to become a
mother é« πολιᾶς γαστρός (Pind. Pyth. iv. 98) !— εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν κ.τ.λ.]
[See Note XLVIII. p. 178.] The negative proposition in ver. 19 is, in the
first place, still more specially elucidated, likewise negatively, by εἰς. . . .
ἀπιστία (dé, the epexegetical autem), and then the positive opposite relation is
subjoined to it by ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεδυν. κιτ.Δ. In the former negative illustrative
clause the chief element giving the information is εἰς τ. ἐπαγγ. τ. Θεοῦ, Which
is therefore placed first with great emphasis: ‘‘but with regard to the
promise of God he wavered not incredulously, but waxed strong in faith,” etc.

1 With regard to the children subsequent-
ly begotten with Keturah, Gen. xxv. 1 ff.,
the traditional explanation, already lying

2 With the reading without ov (see the crit.
remarks) the thought conveyed is: and
without having been weak in faith he regarded,

at the foundation of Augustine, de Civ. D.
Xvi. 28, is sufficient, viz. that the power of
begetting, received from God, continued
after the death of Sarah.—On ἑκατονταέτης
comp. Pind. Pyth.iv. 503. According to the
uncertain canon of the old grammarians
(see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 406 f.) it ought to
have been written here as an oxytone (so
Lachmann) because it is the predicate of a
person. Comp. Kiihner, I. p. 420.

etc., but did not become doubtful in respect to
the promise of God, ete. Comp. Hofmann.
But μὴ acd. τ. riot. would thus be super-
fluous, and even logically unsuitable in re-
lation to ver. 20. Simply and clearly Paul
would only have written : καὶ κατενόησε μὲν
τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα κ.τ.λ. εἰς δὲ THY ἐπαγγ. K.T.A.

3 5606 Winer, p. 460 [E. T. 493 f.]; Butt-
mann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 315 [E. T. 868 f.]. Comp.
also Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. vi. 10, not. crit.

CHAP. Iv., 19-21. Tt

Since in this way the discourse runs on very simply and suitably to the
sense, it is unnecessary to resort to the more awkward suggestion, that
Paul already begins the antithetic statement with dé (however, see Hartung,
Partikell. 1. p. 171), to which nevertheless he has again given the emphasis
of contrast through the negative and positive forms (Philippi, who, how-
ever, admits our view also; comp. Tholuck and others). In no case,
however, can it be said, with Riickert, that Paul wished to write. εἰς
δὲ τ. ἐπαγγ. τ. Θεοῦ ἐπίστ. μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, but that his love for antitheses
induced him to divide the idea of ἐπίστ. into its negative and positive
elements, and that therefore εἰς should be referred to the ἐπίστ. at first
thought of. De Wette (comp. Krehl) conjectures that, according to the
analogy of πιστεύειν εἰς, εἰς is the object of duexp. It is the quite usual im
regard to, as respects; see Winer, p. 371 [E. T. 9971]. ---- διακρίνεσθαι] To
waver, the idea being that of a mental struggle into which one enters, xiv.
23 ; Matt. xxi. 21; Acts x. 20; see Huther on James i. 6. This usage is
so certain in the N. T., that there is no need to translate, with van Hengel :
non contradixit, referring to Gen. xvii. 17 ff., in which case τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ is
supposed to mean : ‘‘quanquam in animo volvebat, quae diffidentiam inspi-
rarent.” Such a thought is foreign to the connection, in which everything
gives prominence to fwith only, and not to a mere resignation. —rq ἀπιστίᾳ,
is instrumental, in the sense of the producing cause, but τῇ πίστει, on
, account of the correlation with ἀσθεν. τῇ πίστει in ver. 19, is to be taken as
the dative of more precise definition, consequently : he wavered not by means
of the unbelief (which in such a case he would have had), but became strong
as respects the faith (which he had). Hofmann’s explanation is erroneous,
because not in keeping with the ἀσθεν. τ. πίστ. above. He takes τῇ πίστει as
causal : by faith Abraham was strengthened ‘to an action in harmony with
the promise and requisite for its realization.” 'This addition, which can
hardly fail to convey a very indelicate idea, is a purely gratuitous impor-
tation. — ἐνεδυναμώθη] became strong, heroic in faith ; passive. Comp. Aq.
Gen. vii. 20 : ἐνεδυναμώθη τό ὕδωρ. Heb. xi. 84; Acts ix. 82 ; Eph. vi. 10;
LXX. Ps. 1. 7: ἐνεδυναμώθη ἐπὶ τῇ ματαιότητι αὐτοῦ. In Greek authors the
word does not occur. — δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ] while he gave God glory, and*
was fully persuaded (xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12) that, ete. The qaorist participles
put the διδόναι δόξαν x.7.2. not as preceding the ἐνεδυναμώθη, or as presupposed
in it, but as completed simultaneously with it (comp. on Eph. i. 5). — διδόναι
δόξαν (33 112) τῷ Θεῷ denotes generally every act (thinking, speaking or
doing) that tends to the glory of God (Josh. vii. 19; Jer. xiii. 16 ; Esr. x.
11; Luke xvii. 18; John ix. 24; Acts xii, 23) ; and the context supplies
the special reference of its meaning. Here: by recognition of the divine
omnipotence (not cireumcisione subeunda, as van Hengel thinks), as is shown
by what follows, which is added epexegetically. ‘‘Insigne praeconium
fidei est, gloriam Deo tribuere,” Melanchthon. The opposite : 1 Johnv. 10.
— ἐπήγγελται] in a middle sense, Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 262].

1The evidence against καί is too weak. the δοὺς δόξ. τ. ©. Oecumenius has aptly re-
Without it tAnpod, would be subordinated to marked on πληροφ.: οὐκ εἶπε πιστεύσας,

‘

172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Ver. 22. Result of the whole disquisition, emphatically pointing back to
ver. 3 (ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην). ---- διὸ Kai] on which account also-(i. 24),
namely because Abraham believed so strongly as is described in vv. 18-21.
— The subject of ἐλογίσθη (it was reckoned) is self-evident, viz. the believing.
Comp. Niigelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 60, ed. 3.

Vv. 23-25. Relation of the Scripture testimony as to Abraham’s justifi-
cation to the justification of Christians by faith ; with which the proof for
the νόμον ἱστῶμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως (111. 81) is completed. — dr? αὐτόν] on his ac-
count, in order to set forth the mode of his justification. Then, corresponding
thereto : dv’ ἡμᾶς. Comp. Beresch R. 40, 8-: ‘‘Quicquid scriptum est de
Abrahamo, scriptum est de filiis ejus.” On the idea generally comp. xiv.
4; 1 Cor. ix. 10, x. 6, 11; Gal. 111. 8.— μέλλει λογίζεσθαι) namely the πισ-
tevev, Which, in accordance with the divine ordination, is to be reckoned
to us Christians (wéAAer),—to us, as those who believe on Him that raised up
Jesus. μέλλει (Comp. on vill. 13) is therefore not to be taken for ἔμελλε,
(Béhme, comp. Olshausen), but contains what God has willed, which
shall accomplish itself continwously as to each concrete case (not for the first
time at the judgment, as Fritzsche thinks) where Christ is believed on.
The ἡμεῖς, i.e. the community of believers (not however conceived as becon-
ing such, as Hofmann supposes), are the constant recipients of the fulfilment
of that which was once written not merely for Abraham’s sake but also for
theirs. —roi¢ πιστεύουσιν] not : who from time to time become believing (Hof-
mann), which is not consistent with ἡμᾶς, but : quippe qui credunt. The
ἐπὶ τὸν éyeipavta x.7.A. that is added then points out the specific contents,
which is implied in the μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, for the πιστεύειν that has not yet
been more precisely defined. In and with this faith we have constantly the
blessing of the λογίζεσθαι divinely annexed to it. Comp. viii. 1. And the
ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα K.T.A. (Comp. X. 9) is purposely chosen to express the charac-
ter of the faith, partly on account of the necessary analogy with ver. 17,’
and partly because the divine omnipotence, which raised up Jesus, was at
the same time the strongest proof of divine grace (ver. 25). Regarding ἐπί,
comp. on ver. 5. — παρεδόθη] standing designation for the divine surrender of
Christ, surrender wnto death (viii. 32), perhaps after Is. liii. 12. It is at the
same time self-surrender (Gal. ii. 20 ;, Eph. v. 2), since Christ was obedient
to his Father. — διὰ τὰ παραπτ. ἡμῶν on account of our sins, namely, that they
might be atoned for by the ἱλαστήριον of Jesus, iti. 24 f., v. 8 f. — διὰ τὴν
τ΄ δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν) on account of our justification, in order to accomplish on us
the judicial act of transference into the relation of δικαιοσύνη. Comp. v. 18.
For this object God raised Jesus from the dead ;? for the resurrection of

ἀλλ᾽ ἐμφατικώτερον. It corresponds with the gians (comp. also Gerhard in Calovius) took

full victory of the trial of the patriarch’s
faith at the c/ose of its delineation.

1But in point of fact to ‘‘believe on
Christ’ and to “‘ believe on God who raised
Christ,” are identical, because in both cases
Christ is the specific object.

2 Compare Weiss, idl. Theol. p. 329. For
the view which the older Reformed theolo-

of the state of the case as an acquittal from
our sins, Which was accorded to Christ and
to us with Him through His resurrection,
see Ritschl, Rechifertigung und Verséhnung,
I. p. 288 f. According to Beza, Christ could
not have furnished the atonement of our
sins, if He had not, as the risen victor, van-
quished death. But the case is rather

NOTES. 173
the sacrificed One was required to produce in men the JSaith, through which
alone the objective fact of the atoning offering of Jesus could have the ef-
fect of δικαίωσις subjectively, because Christ is the ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως,
ili. 25, Without His resurrection therefore the atoning work of His death
would have remained without subjective appropriation ; His surrender διὰ
Ta παραπτ. ἡμῶν would not have attained its end, our justification. Comp.
especially 1 Cor. xv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 20 f., xv.; 1 Pet. i. 21. Moreover the
two definitions by διά are not two different things, but only the two aspects
of the same exhibition of grace, the negative and the positive ; of which,
however, the former by means of the parallelism, in which both are put in
juxtaposition, is aptly attributed to the death as the objective ἱλαστήριον, and
the latter to the resurrection, as the divine act that is the means of its ap-
propriation.* Melanchthon has well said: « Quanquam enim praecessit
meritum, tamen ita ordinatum fuit ab initio, ut tunc singulis applicaretur
cum fide acciperent.” The latter was to be effected by the resurrection of
Jesus ; the meritwm lay in His death, but the raising Him up took place for
the δικαίωσις, in which His meritwm was to be realized in the faithful. Comp.
vill. 34. Against the Catholic theologians, who referred du. to sanctification
(as Maier, Bisping, Dillinger, and Reithmayr still do), see Calovius. Nor
is intercession even (viii. 34) to be introduced into διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν
(Calvin and others ; also Tholuck and Philippi), since that does not take
place to produce the δικαιοσύνη, but has reference {0 those who are already
justified, with a view to preserve them in the state of salvation ; consequently
the δικαίωσις of the subjects concerned precedes it.

Notts spy American Eprror.

XXXVI. Ver. 1. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι ᾿Αβραὰμ κατὰ σάρκα;

It seems better to regard this question as involving an objection or difficulty
anticipated by the Apostle as arising from the other side. If the doctrine of
faith establishes the law in its truest meaning and follows out the line cf the
O. T., it was natural to ask from the Judaistic standpoint, What can we hold that
Abraham gained according to the flesh, i.e, in the sphere to which works belong?
To this question, as taken up into the Apostle’s discourse and presented in his
own language, the answer is, Nothing—nothing, that is, in respect to the great
matter under consideration, The question implies this answer, and the fol-
lowing verses confirm it. Weiss ed. Mey., indeed, declares this to be an arbi-
trary assumption, and maintains that a question involving such a negative

conceived as the converse: Christ could
not have risen, if His death had not expi-
ated our sins. In this way Christ has not
merely died ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, but has also been
raised again (2 Cor. ν. 15); without His sav-
ing power, however, having been in itself
conditioned only by the resurrection (to
which, in the main, the views of Ottinger
and Menken ultimately come).

1 The reference to the fellowship with the

death of Christ, whereby believers have
died to their former life, and with His res-
urrection as an entrance into a new state
of life no longer conditioned by the flesh
(see Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 74),
is inadmissible ; because it does not corre-
spond to the prototype of Abraham, which
determines the entire representation of
justification in this chapter.

174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

could not be derived from iii. 31, because in that verse there is no indication
of anything calling for it. But is an assumption arbitrary which enables us
to connect with this verse the following context in a natural and a simple way,
and saves the necessity of giving to γάρ, as Weiss does, the sense (very uncom-
mon, if ever found in the N. T. in such sentencés) of namely, or indeed? And as
for iii. 31, there was surely, to the Jewish mind, if not to the mind of the mod-
ern commentator, a suggestion in the claim of that verse of a depreciation of
the glory of Abraham, and just such a suggestion as might call for and occasion
the entire course of reasoning which fills this fourth chapter.

XXXVII. Ver. 1. κατὰ σάρκα.

The words κατὰ odpxa, whether we read εὑρηκέναι after ἡμῶν, with T. R. Meyer,
Godet, ete., or after ἐροῦμεν, with Tisch., Weiss, etc., are probably to be connected
with that verb (so Meyer, Weiss). The question considered in the next verses
is, not whether he gained anything, but whether he gained anything κατὰ σάρκα.
R. V. text makes according to the flesh qualify forefather. A. R. V. joins the
phrase with the verb. The text of Westcott and Hort omits εὑρηκέναι altogether,
with B and 47. The meaning, then, is, What shall we say of Abraham our
forefather according to the flesh? This text is recognized in R. V. marg.

XXXVIIT. Ver. 2. εἰ γάρ ᾿Αβραὰμ κ.τ.λ.

After all the discussion of this verse, and the various attempts made to ex-
plain it, the view of Calvin, Hodge, etc. seems to be the most satisfactory
that can be offered. The only serious objection to it is that which Meyer sug-
gests—that the words πρὸς θεόν occur only after ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, instead of being in-
serted after ἔχει καύχημα of the preceding clause. But when we consider that,
if this view be adopted, we have a simple and complete proof of the negative
answer which is suggested by ver. 1; that we have the O. T. argument for
the Pauline doctrine introduced, ina most natural way, as starting from the
question of that verse; and that the writer may have placed the words πρὸς
θεόν where they are, because the following verses were to direct attention to
God's accounting of faith as righteousness,—while they would easily be carried
back by the reader’s mind to the previous clause also, inasmuch as glorying
before God is manifestly in the line of thought,—this objection loses much of
its force, and must be regarded as overbalanced by the other considerations.

XXXIX. Ver. 3. ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

The meaning of the phrase ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην is rendered clear, (a) by
the passages in which Paul uses this verb (with εἰς) with reference to other
subjects than the one here under consideration, Rom. ii. 26, ix. 8 (οἵ, Acts
xix, 27) ; (Ὁ) by the passages in which he uses the same verb with ὡς, Rom.
vili. 86; 1 Cor. iv. 1. (cf. Rom. vi. 11, a kindred passage, although ὡς is
omitted) ; (c) by the passages in which the verb occurs, with either of the two
prepositions, in the LXX. (εἰς, 1 Kings i. 13; Job xli. 23; Ps. ev. 31; Isa.
RI 15 KO 10; ΧΙ 17: Iuam. iva 2: ΗΙῸΒ. νἷὖ ρ- ὡς θη. χΧεσὶ Ὁ: 90"
xli. 20; Ps. xliii. 22 ; Isa. v. 28, xxix. 16, xl. 15; Dan. iv. 32; Amos vi. 5); (d)
by kindred passages in the Apoc. books (with εἰς, Wisdom of Sol. ii. 16, ix. 6 ;
1 Mace. ii. 52—with ὡς, Eccl. xxix. 6). The comparison of these passages

NOTES. 178

proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the phrases ἐλογίσθη εἰς and ἐλ. ὡς are sub-
stantially equivalent to each other. They differ only as our expressions : to
count a person for a wise man, and to count him asa wiseman. To urge, as
some have done, that εἰς σωτηρίαν, εἰς μετάνοιαν, ete., sometimes, in other con-
nections, mean, that they might be saved, etc., has no force. We have here a
peculiar phrase, used by many of the Scripture writers. They all employ it
with asingle and definite meaning. They never, when using it, give the telic
sense to the preposition. If they do not give it this sense where there isno
reference to the case of Abraham, the conclusion is irresistible that they do
not where there is such a reference. When Abraham believed, therefore—
such is the Apostle’s statement—his faith was reckoned to him by God for, i.e.
as if it were, actual righteousness. Faith is not-actual righteousness, but,
in view of the provision made by the grace of God for the forgiveness of sins,
it is accounted as if it were: compare ii. 26, where the uncircumcision of the
Gentile, in the supposed case, is reckoned as circumcision, though actually it
is not circumcision. Faith, in the Christian system, is thus accepted of God
in the place of the perfect righteousness which, on the legal method, was
required for justification ; and the man who believes is declared right before
the Divine tribunal—all obstacles on the governmental side having been
removed by the sacrifice of Christ (cf. 111. 24-26). It may be noticed, also,
that in no passage in Paul’s writings, or in other parts of the N. T. where
λογίζεσθαι εἰς, or the verb alone, is used, is there a declaration that anything
belonging to one person is imputed, accounted, or reckoned to another (the
use of the kindred verb éAAdya (Philem. 18) constituting no proper excep-
tion), or a formal statement that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers.
It is the believer's own faith—as it was in the case of Abraham—which is
reckoned to him.

XL. Ver. 5. λογίζεται---εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

The parallelism of vv. 4 and 5 would call for the words οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ
ὀφείλημα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ χάριν at the end of verse 5, instead of those which are found
there. The substitution of these latter words is easily accounted for as arising
from the inserted πιστεύοντι «,7.A., and also as designed to meet the thought of
the following verse ; and even more easily, on account of the fact that the sub-
stituted words carry with them, also, the idea of those whose place they fill.

XLI. Ver. 9. ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗν οὗτος k.T.2.

The question suggested here is the one which naturally follows after the
preceding context. If justification is shown in the O. T. to be by faith,
because Abraham was thus justified, how far does it extend? Is it limited
to the circumcision, or does it reach out to the uncircumcision also? The
question is suitably put in this form, because Abraham was, in the course of
his life, in both conditions ; and it can be readily answered by noticing the
fact, that he is spoken of in the history as having had his faith accounted to
him for righteousness while he was yet uncircumcised. |

In the manner of introducing the question of this verse, a peculiarity of
Paul’s style may be observed. The allusion to David is not for the purpose of
bringing forward a second example, but only (as Meyer also says) to give a
confirmation from David’s words of what is established by the single example

176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

of Abraham. This passage concerning David’s macarism, therefore, is paren-
thetical as related to the main line of thought. But here, as in other places in
his epistles, when the Apostle returns, at the end of the parenthesis, to the
direct course of the argument, he remains, in his phraseology, under the
influence of what he has just before been saying. A striking instance of this
may be seen in v. 18, 19, comp. with v. 15-17. Here it may be noticed in the
words μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος.

XLII. Ver. 11. εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα, «.7.A.

In vv. 11, 12 we find a correspondence with Gal. iii. 7. The grammatical
connection with the immediately preceding context is different, indeed, in the
two passages, and consequently the presentation of the thought in its details is
also different. But the central point in relation to the reasoning is the same.
In both cases we have—in substance here, and formally in Gal.—the conclusion
which follows from the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. If he re-
ceived his justification by this means, all believers (whether Gentiles or Jews)
may likewise receive it. In Gal. this thought is expressed by saying that
those who have faith (and they only) are sons of Abraham ; in these verses,
by saying, that Abraham is the father of all who have faith.

XLITI. Ver. 12. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν.

Westcott and Hort suppose τοῖς to be a ‘‘ primitive error [the original read-
ing not having been rightly preserved in any existing document] for αὐτοῖς."
Alford says, ‘‘ The inversion of the article appears to be in order tu bring out
more markedly” the two ideas—‘‘who are not only of ἐκ mepit., but also of
ototy.” Shedd, with a similar thought apparently, regards the second arti-
cle as employed for the purpose of more emphatically calling attention to the
added characteristic. Godet considers the first τοῖς as a pronoun, but the
second as a simple definite article: ‘‘those who are not only of the circum-
cision, but, at the same time, dhe (individuals) walking, οἷο. Weiss ed. Mey.
suggests that the true explanation may be in the fact, that here also, as in
ver, 11, the essential condition to a sharing in what Abraham had is a similar
faith to his—to those who are not only circumcised, but—also in this case,
only to those who walk, etc. Philippi says, ‘‘It is to be borne in mind that
negligences of expression occur in the most practised and correct writers.”’
rifford supposes that the Apostle himself, or his amanuensis, or one of the
earliest transcribers of the Epistle, inserted a superfiuous article. The expla-
nation of Godet appears fanciful, and is contrary to all the probabilities of the
case. That of Weiss involves, to say the least, a very unusual form of express-
ing the supposed idea. That of Alford and Shedd assumes an emphasis which
can hardly be proved to inhere in the repeated article. The Greeks did not,
apparently, adopt this course to secure emphasis, and it is doubtful whether
any such design on the part of the writer would have been suggested to the
reader’s mind by the repetition, The textual conjecture of Dr. Hort (W. & H.)
may be an ingenious one, but has no external support. It seems better to
hold, with Meyer, de Wette, etc., that the article is erroneously repeated, or, as
Winer and Philippi say, that there is here an instance of negligence of style.
The irregularity may, very probably, be explained in connection with the fact
that Paul was not writing, but dictating.

NOTES. aire

XLIV. Ver. 13. οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία K.T.A.

At ver. 13 the thought—although, here again, the grammatical connection
and the manner of introducing the new point are different—turns to what in
the Epistle to the Galatians is presented in 111]. 8-10. The O. T. proof
for justification by faith, as founded on the case of Abraham, rests not
only upon the fact that he was justified in this way, but also upon the
peculiarity of the promise which was given tohim. The argument in Galatians
is this: The promise was a promise of blessing ; those who are of the law are
under a curse, and hence cannot be sharers in the blessing ; consequently the
men who receive the fulfilment of the promise must be believers, and only
believers. In the passage before us, it is changed somewhat by reason of the
exigencies of the context, but, in substance, it is the same. The promise is
here described in its relation to Abraham—that he should be heir of the
world ; in Galatians, in its relation to his believing successors—that all the
nations should be blessed in him. Of this promise it is said that it did not
come to Abraham through the law, but through faith, and the proof presented
is (like that in Galatians), that the law works toward a result opposite to the
one indicated in the promise— namely, toward wrath, and not blessing. The
experience of the fulfilment of the promise, therefore, could not be secured to
any—much less to all the true seed of Abraham (both Jews and Gentiles), if it
were attainable only through the law. On the other hand, it is and can be
made sure only through faith.

ΧΙ. Ver. 13. διὰ νόμου.

That νόμος, in vy. 138, 14, means the Mosaic law is evidenced, (a) by the fact
that, when the Apostle presents in ver. 15 the proof of the statement which he
makes respecting νόμος in ver. 14, he uses the words ὁ νόμος. In order to the
completeness of this proof, the two expressions must refer to the same thing ;
(b) by the parallelism, in its main thought, of this passage with Gal. iii.
8-10. The proof there offered (ver. 10) requires the same correspondence
between the two which is demanded here; (c) by the contrast, in the verses
which immediately follow, both here and in Galatians, between faith and the
law—where the reference is clearly to the law of Moses ; (d) by the fact that
in Gal. iii. 18—where a similar statement is found to that of ver. 14 here,
and νόμου is used—the preceding verse to which this statement is subordinate
has ὁ νόμος, and is in the midst of a surrounding context which deals especially
with the position and effect of that particular law which the Jews knew.
Meyer holds that νόμος of the last clause of ver. 15 also means the Mosaic
law—where the law is not, ete.—and this is very probably, though not certainly,
the true explanation. If, however, this be not the meaning, the peculiar form
of expression—with the negative—must be regarded as indicating the more
universal sense, where there is no law.

XLVI. Ver. 15. οὐδὲ παράβασις.

παράβασις, παραβάτης, and παραβαίνω, refer to that particular sort of sin or
wrong which consists in transgression of positive or revealed or written law. The
use of the first of these words here, therefore, shows that Paul certainly did
not mean by νόμος of this verse any law whatever, whether revealed law or the
law of nature, This view of the meaning has been held by some writers, but

178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

is quite indefensible. ‘‘Transgression,’’in the Pauline language, always pre-
supposes the existence of revealed or positive law. The evidence respecting
the use of these words may be seen by examining the passages in which they
occur: παραβαίνω, Matt. xv. 2,3; Acts 1. 25; 2 John 9 (T. R.); παραβάτης,
Rom. ii. 25, 27; Gal. ii. 18 ; James ii. 9, 11; παράβασις, Rom. ii. 23, iv. 15, v.
Π1: ΘᾺ τὴν. 19): iam) in. 18. Elebiii2r πχ 10.

ΧΙ]. Ver. 19. οὐ κατενόησεν.

In opposition to the view of Meyer, who adopts οὐ, T. R. (see his critical
remarks at the beginning of the chapter), W. & H., Tisch., Treg., Weiss, Godet,
and others, omit it. Weiss ed. Mey. claims that Meyer’s explanation of the
negative μῇ before ἀσθενήσας, as being from the point of view of the subject, is
to be rejected because Abraham cannot be regarded as reflecting on the char-
acter of his faith, and that a rhetorical meiosis, such as is supposed by Mey,
Philippi, and others (following Theophylact), would certainly have been
expressed with οὐκ. The μῦ, he thinks, can only deny such an ἀσθενεῖν as
apparently would be necessarily united with karevinoev ; and hence he holds
that the οὐ before the last mentioned verb cannot have been in the original
text. As against Meyer’s view respecting μή Weiss seems to be correct, but it
is doubtful whether his own positive position can be maintained. Can we not,
with Winer, p. 486, account for μὴ (if we read οὐ κατενόησεν), as Introducing a
supposition or conception which is to be denied? Philippi claims, on the
other hand, that the od cannot be dispensed with, because the subjoined δέ
(ver. 20) would, in that case, have required the insertion of μέν after κατενόησεν.
Buttm. (p. 356), however, shows that while μέν would be demanded ina
classical writer, there is more looseness of usage in the case of Paul and the
other N. T. authors. The attempt to determine on absolute grounds that the
one or the other reading must, of necessity, be adopted seems to be vain, and
the question must be decided according to the probabilities of the case, both
external and internal. The external evidence undoubtedly favors the omission
of od. The internal argument is more evenly balanced, but the connection
with ver. 18, in which Abraham is represented as resting his belief upon hope
in God, where there seemed to be no ground for hope on the human side, and
the fact that Gen. xvii. 17 is the passage in the O. T. narrative to which the
language of the verse is most nearly conformed, may be regarded as, on the
whole, confirming the evidence of the oldest mss. If οὐ is omitted, μὴ ἀσθενῆσας
may be translated, with R. V. and Weiss, without being weakened [or weak] in
faith, or, perhaps better, with Buttm. (cf. Godet), not being weak, etc. —the clause,
as Godet expresses it, ‘‘ controlling all that follows,” as if a sort of negative cause.
The former rendering is exposed, in some degree, to the objection presented
by Meyer, that the clause thus becomes superfluous. He holds, however (see
his note), that this is the true rendering of the text, if read without οὐ, and
presents the objection as an argument against that text.

XLVIII. Ver. 20. εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.

Tf οὐ is omitted before κατενόησεν, dé is to be explained as equivalent to on the
other hand, or yet; although he considered the facts which made the result
promised seem impossible, he yef was so far from wavering through unbelief,
that he was even strengthened, ete.

CHAP. V. 179

CHAPTER: Vc

Ver. 1. ἔχομεν] Lachm. (in the margin), Scholz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (8) read
ἔχωμεν, following A B¥ C Ὁ K L δ, min., several vss. (including Syr. Vulg.
It.) and Fathers. But this reading,’ though very strongly attested, yields a
sense (lef us maintain peace with God) that is here utterly unsuitable ; because
the writer now enters ona new and important doctrinal topic, and an exhortation
at the very outset, especially regarding a subject not yet expressly spoken of,
would at this stage be out of place.'| Hence the ἔχομεν, sufficiently attested by
B** §** F G, most min., Syr. p. and some Fathers, is to be retained ; and the
subjunctive must be regarded as having arisen from misunderstanding, or
from the hortatory use of the passage. — Ver. 2. τῇ πίστει] wanting in BD EF
G, Aeth. It. ; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (7), as also by Ewald. Following
ver, 1, it is altogether superfluous ; but this very reason accounts for its omis-
sion, which secured the direct reference of εἰς τ. yap. ταύτ to mpooay. The gen-
uineness of τῇ πίστει is also attested by the reading ἐν τῇ πίστει (So Fritzsche)
in A 8** 93, and several Fathers, which points toa repetition of the final letters
of éoyjxawEN,—Ver. 6. After ἀσθενῶν preponderating witnesses have ἔτι, which
Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have adopted. A misplacement of the ἔτι before
yap, because it was construed with ἀσθενῶν, along with which it came to be
written. Thus ἔτει came in twice, and the first was either mechanically allowed
to remain (A C D* δ), or there was substituted for it εἴγε (B), or εἰς τί (F G), or
εἰ yap. The misplacement of the ἔτε came to predominate, because a Church-
lesson began with Χριστός. -- - Ver. 8. ὁ Θεός, which a considerable number of
witnesses have before εἰς ἡμᾶς (so Tisch. 7) is wanting in B. But as the love
of Christ, not that of God, appeared from ver. 7 to be the subject of the dis-
course, ὁ Θεός was omitted. — Ver 11. καυχώμενοι] F G read καυχῶμεν ; L, min.,
and several Fathers καυχώμεθα. Also Vulg. It. Arm. Slav. express gloriamur,
An erroneous interpretation. See the exegetical remarks, — Ver. 12. The sec-
ond ὁ θάνατος is wanting in DE F G62, It. Syr. p. Aeth. and most Fathers, also
Aug. In Syr. with an asterisk; Arm. Chrys. Theodoret place it after διῆλθεν.
Tisch. (7) had omitted it. But as the word has preponderant testimony in its
favour, and as in order to the definiteness of the otherwise very definitely ex-
pressed sentence it cannot be dispensed with, if in both halves of ver, 12 the
relation of sin and death is, as is manifestly the design, to be expressly put for-
ward, ὁ θάνατος, omitted by Tisch., must be defended. Its omission may have
arisen from its apparent superfluousness, or from the similarity between the
final syllables of av@p6IIOYS and OavaTOS. — Ver. 14. μή] is wanting in 62, 63,
67**, Or. and others, codd. in Ruf, and Aug., and is declared by Ambrosiaster

1 This even, in opposition to the opinion vero non videtur.”? Hofmann also has not
of Tisch. (8), that on account of the weighty been able suitably to explain the ἔχωμεν
testimony in its favour ἔχωμεν cannot be which he defends. See the exegetical re-
rejected, ‘‘ nisi prorsus ineptum sit ; ineptum marks.

180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

to be an interpolation. But it is certified partly by decisive testimony in its
favour ; partly by the undoubted genuineness of the cai; and partly because
the μή apparently contradicts the erroneously understood ἐφ᾽ © (in quo) πάντες
ἥμαρτον in ver. 12. See Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 39 fi. — Ver. 16. ἁμαρτῆ-
σαντος] DE F 6, 26, 80, and several vss. and Fathers read ἁμαρτήματος, which
Griesb. recommended. A gloss occasioned by the antithesis ἐκ πολλ. wapar-
Twpatov. — Ver. 17. τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι] So also Lachm. and Tisch.
(8) following BC KL P 8, vss., and Fathers, But ἃ F ἃ read ἐν ἑνὶ παραπτ.,
Ὁ E ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ παραπτ. 47, Or. ἐν ἑνὸς παραπτ. The original reading was most prob-
ably the simplest, ἐν évi παραπτ., which, though not most strongly, is neverthe-
less sufficiently attested (also recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. (7),
because from it the rise of the other variations can be very naturally explained.
By way of more specific indication in some cases, the article was added (D E),
in others ἑνί was changed into ἑνός (47, Or.). But, seeing that in any case the
sense was quite the same as in the τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτ. read in ver. 15, this was
at first written alongside asa parallel, and then taken into the text.

ConTENTS.—Paul has hitherto described the δικαιοσίνη ἐκ πίστεως in respect
of its necessity (i. 18-iii. 21); of its nature (111. 21-30); and of its relation
to the law (ili. 31-iv. 25). He now discusses the blessed assurance of salvation
secured for the present and the future to the δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως (ver. 1-11);
and then—in order clearly to exhibit the greatness and certainty of salvation
in Christ, more especially in its divine world-wide significance as the blissful
epoch-forming counterpart of the Adwmite ruin—he presents us with a de-
tailed parallel between this salvation and the misery which once came through
Adam (vv. 12-19), and was necessarily augmented through the law (vv. 20,
21).

Ver. 1.’ Οὖν draws an inference from the whole of the preceding section,
iii, 21—-iv. 25, and develops the argument in such a form that δικαιωθέντες,
following at once on διὰ τήν δικαίωσιν ἡμ., heads the sentence with triumph-
ant emphasis. What a blessed-asswrance of salvation is enjoyed by believers
in virtue of their justification which has taken place through faith, is now
to be more particularly set forth ; not however in the form of an exhortation
(Hofmann, in accordance with \the reading ἔχωμεν) ‘‘to let our relation to
God be one of peace” (through a life of faith), in which case the emphasis,
that obviously rests in the first instance on δικαίωθ. and then on εἰρήνην, is
taken to lie on διὰ τοῦ κυρίου iu. ᾽1. X. — εἰρήνην ἔχ. π. τ. Θεόν] [See Note
¢ XLIX. p. 220.] He who is justified is no longer in the position of one to
| whom God must be and is hostile (ἐχθρὸς Θεοῦ, ver. 9 f.), but on the con-
trary he has peace (not in a general sense contentment, satisfaction, as Th.

Schott thinks) in his relation to God. This is the peace which consists in
the known objective state of reconciliation, the opposite of the state in which
\one is subject to the divine wrath and the sensus irae. With justification
this peace ensues as its immediate and abiding result.? Hence δικαιωθέντες

. . ἔχομεν (comp. Acts ix. 31; John xvi. 83). And through Christ (διὰ

1 On vy. 1-8 see Winzer, Commentat. Lips. 1869, p. 3 ff.
1832. On the entire chapter St6lting, Bei- 2 Comp. Dorner, die Rechtfert. durch den
trage 2. Hxegese ἃ. Paul. Briefe, Gottingen, Glauben, p. 12 f.

CHAP. V., 2. 181
τοῦ κυρίου k.T.A.) as the εἰρηνοποιός is this pacem obtinere (Bremi, ad Isoer.
Archid. p. 111) procured ; a truth obvious indeed in itself, but which, in
consonance with the strength and fulness of the Apostle’s own believing ex-
perience, is very naturally again brought into special prominence here, in
order to connect, as it were, triumphantly with this objective cause of the
state of peace what we owe to it respecting the point in question, ver. 2.
There is thus the less necessity for joining διὰ τοῦ κυρίου x.t.A. with εἰρζνην
(Stélting); it belongs, like πρὸς τ. Θεόν, in accordance with the position of
ἔχομεν, to the latter word. — πρὸς (of the ethical relation, Bernhardy, p. 265),
as in Acts il. 47, xxiv. 16.1 It is not to be confounded with the divinely
wrought inward state of mental peace, which is denoted by εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ in
Phil. iv. 7; comp. Col. iii. 15. The latter is the subjective correlate of the
objective relation of the εἰρήνη, which we have πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; although in-
separably combined with the latter.

Ver. 2. A’ οὗ καὶ x.7.A.] Confirmation and more precise definition of the
preceding διὰ. . Ἴησου X. The καί does not merely append (Stélting),
but is rather the ‘‘also” of corresponding relation, giving prominence pre-
cisely to what had here an important practical bearing i.e. as proving the
previous διὰ κυρίου «.7.A. Comp. ix. 24; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Phil. iv. 10. The
climactic interpretation here (Kéllner: ‘‘a heightened form of stating the
merit of Christ ;’ comp. Riickert) is open to the objection that the προσαγωγὴ
εἰς τ. yap. is not something added to or higher than the εἰρήνη, but, on the
contrary, the fowndation of it. If we were to take καὶ. . . . καί ἴῃ the sense
‘“as well. . . . as” (Th. Schott, Hofmann), the two sentences, which are
not to be placed in special relation to iii. 23 would be made co-ordinate,
although the second is the consequence of that which is affirmed in the first.
—riv προσαγωγήν] the introduction,? Xen. Oyrop. vii. 5, 45 ; Thuc. i. 82, 2;
Plut. Mor. p. 1097 Εἰ, Lucian, Zeux. 6 ; and see alsoon Eph. 11. 18. Through
Christ we have had our introduction to the grace, etc., inasmuch as He
Himself (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18) in virtue of His atoning sacrifice which re-
moves the wrath of God, has become our προσαγωγεύς, or, as Chrysostom
aptly expresses it, μακρὰν ὄντας προσήγαγε. In this case the preposition διά,
which corresponds with the διά in ver. 1, is fully warranted, because Christ
has brought us to grace in His capacity as the divinely appointed and di-
vinely given Mediator. Comp. Winer, p. 354 f. [E. T. 378 f.]. — Τὸ τ. προσαγ.
ἐσχήκ. belongs εἰς τ. χάριν ταύτην ; and τῇ πίστει, by means of faith, denotes the

1 Comp. Herodian, viii. 7, 8: ἀντι πολέμου
μὲν εἰρήνην ἔχοντες πρὸς ϑεούς. Plat. Pol. v.
p. 465 Β: εἰρήνην πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ ἄνδρες
ἄξουσιν ; Legg. xii. p. 955 B; Ale. 7. p. 107,

"D; Xenoph. and others.

2 Προσαγωγή ought not to be explained as
access (Vulg. accessum, and so most inter-
preters), but as leading towards, the mean-
ing which the word always has (even in
Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12). See Xen. ἐ.6.. τοὺς ἐμοὺς
φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῆς. Polybius uses
it to express the bringing up of engines
against a besieged town, ix. 41, 1, xiv. 10,

9 ; comp. i. 48, 2; the bringing up of ships to
the shore, x. i. 6; the bringing of cattle into
the stall, xii. 4, 10. In Herod. ii. 58 also the
literal meaning is: a leading up, carrying
up in solemn procession. Tholuck and van
Hengel have rightly adopted the active
meaning in this verse (comp. Weber, vom
Zorne Gottes, p. 816); whilst Philippi, Um-
breit, Ewald, Hofmann (comp. Mehring)
abide by the rendering ‘ access.” Chrysos-
tom aptly observes on Eph. ii. 18: οὐ yap
ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν προσήλθομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ
προσήχϑημεν.

189 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

subjective medium of τ. προσαγ. ἐσχήκαμεν. On the other hand, Oecumenius,
Bos, Wetstein, Michaelis, Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius take τ. rpocaywy. ab-
solutely, in the sense of access to God (according to Reiche as a figurative
mode of expressing the beginning of grace), and εἰς τὴν yap. ταῦτ. as belong-
ing to τῇ πίστει. In that case we must supply after zpocoay. the words πρὸς
τ. Θεόν from ver. 1 (Eph. ii. 18, 111. 12) ; and we may with Bos and Michae-
lis explain προσαγωγή by the usage of courts, in accordance with which
access to the king was obtained through a rpocaywyetc, sequester (Lamprid.
in Alex. Sev. 4). But the whole of this reading is liable to the objection
that πίστις εἰς τὴν χάριν would be an expression without analogy in the N. T.
--- ἐσχήκαμεν] Not : habemus (Luther and many others), nor nacti sumus et
habemus (most modern interpreters, including Tholuck, Riickert, Winzer,
Ewald), but habuimus, namely, when we became Christians. So also de Wette,
Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Hofmann. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 9, ii. 13, vil. 5.
The perfect realizes as present the possession formerly obtained, as in Plat.
Apol. p. 20 Ὁ, and-see Bernhardy, p. 879. --- εἰς τὴν yap. ταῦτ. The divine
grace of which the justified are partakers ἡ is conceived as a field of space, into
which they have had (ἐσχήκαμεν) introduction through Christ by means of
faith, and in which they now have (ἔχομεν) peace with God. — ἐν ἡ ἑστήκαμεν]
does not,refer to τῇ πίστει (Grotius), but to the nearest antecedent, τὴν χάριν,
which is also accompanied by the demonstrative : in which we stand. The
joyful consciousness of the present, that the possession of grace once en-
tered upon is permanent, suggested the word to the Apostle. Comp. 1 Cor.
xv. 1; 1 Pet. v. 12. —xat καυχώμεθα] [See Note L. p. 221.] may be regarded
as a continuation either of the last relative sentence (ἐν ἡ ἑστήκ., 80 van
Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, Stélting), or of the previous one (δ οὗ καὶ x.7.A.),
or of the principal sentence (εἰρήν. ἔχομεν). The last alone is suggested by
the context, because, as ver. 3 shows, a new and independent element in the
description of the blessed condition is introduced with kai καυχώμεβθα. ---
καυχᾶσθαι expresses not merely the idea of rejoicing, not merely ‘‘the inward
elevating consciousness, to which outward expression is not forbidden”
(Reiche), but rather the actual glorying, by which we praise ourselves as
privileged (‘‘ what the heart is full of, the mouth will utter”). Such is its
meaning in all cases. — On ἐπί, on the ground of, i.e. over, joined with kavy.,
comp. Ps. xlviii..6 ; Prov. xxv. 14; Wisd. xvii. 7 ;. Ecclus. xxx. 2. No
further example of this use is found in the N. T.? It is therefore unneces-
sary to isolate καυχώμεθα, so as to make ἐπ’ ελπίδι independent of it (iv. 18 ;
so van Hengel). Comp. on the contrary, the σεμνύνεσθαι ἐπί τινε frequent in
Greek authors. The variation of the prepositions, ἐπί and in ver. 3 ἐν, is

1 For to nothing else than the grace ex- ogy.—The demonstrative ταύτην implies

perienced in justification can εἰς τ. xap. τ. be
referred in accordance with the context
(δικαιωϑέντες)---ηαοῦ to the blessings of Chris-
tianity generally (Chrysostom and others,
including Flatt and Winzer; comp.
Riickert and Kéllner); not to the Gosped
(Fritzsche) ; and not to the εἰρήνη (Mehring,
Stolting), which would yield a tame tautol-

something of triumph. Compare Photius.
The joyful consciousness of the Apostle is
still full of the high blessing of grace,
which he has just expressed in the terms
δικαίωσις and δικαιωϑέντες.

2 But see Lycurgus in Beck. Anecd. 275, 4;
Diod. S. xvi. 70; and Kiihner, II. 1, p. 436.

CHAP. V., 3, 4. 188.
not to be imputed to any set purpose ; comp. on iii. 20 ; iii. 25 f. al. —The
δόξα τ. Θεοῦ is the glory of God, in which the members of the Messiah’s
kingdom shall hereafter participate. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; John xvii. 22,
also viii. 17 ; Rev, xxi. 11 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; and see Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 376.
The reading of the Vulg.: gloriae jfiliorum Dei, is a gloss that hits the right
sense. Reiche and Maier, following Luther and Grotius, take the genitive
as a genit. auctoris. But that God is the giver of the δόξα, is self-evident and
does not distinctively characterize it. Riickert urges here also his exposition
of iii. 23; comp. Ewald. But see on that passage. _Flatt takes it as the
approval of God (iii. 23), but the ἐλπίδι, pointing solely to the glorious future,
is decisive against this view. It is aptly explained by Melanchthon : ‘‘ quod
Deus sit nos gloria sua aeterna ornaturus, i.e. vita aeterna et communicatione
sui ipsius.”” ;

Vv. 3, 4.7 Οὐ μόνον δέ] 501]. καυχώμεθα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ. --- ἐν ταῖς
θλίψ.7 of the tribulations (affecting us), as commonly in the N. T. ἐν is con-
nected with καυχᾶσθαι (ver. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 15; Gal. vi. 13). Comp. Senec.
de prov. iv. 4: ‘‘gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter quam fortes
milites bellis triumphant.” As to the ground of this Christian καύχησις, see
the sequel. On the thing itself, in which the believer’s victory over the
world makes itself apparent (viii. 35 ff.), comp. 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 9 ; Matt.
v. 10, 12 ; Acts v. 41; 1 Pet. iv. 12 1. Observe further, how with the joy-
ful assurance of ample experience the triumphant discourse proceeds from
the ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης, as subject-matter of the καυχᾶσθαι, to the direct opposite
(ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν), which may be likewise matter of glorying. Others
(Gléckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, St6lting) erroneously render ἐν as in, which
the contrast, requiring the object, does not permit, since ἐν τ. 64. is not oppos-
ed to the ἐν ἡ in ver. 2. — ὑπομονῇν] endurance,* namely, in the Christian
faith and life. Comp. ii. 7 ; Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. Paul lays down the ἡ
θλίψις ὑπομ. κατεργάζ. unconditionally, because he is speaking of those who
have been justified ἐκ πίστεως, in whose case the reverse cannot take place
without sacrifice of their faith. — δοκιμήν] triedness, 2 Cor. ii. 9, viii. 2, ix.
13 ; Phil. ii. 22, ‘‘ quae ostendit fidem non esse simulatam, sed veram, vivam
et ardentem,” Melanchthon. ‘Triedness is produced through endurance (not
made known, as Reiche thinks) ; for whosoever does not endure thereby be-
comes ἀδόκιμος. There is here no inconsistency with Jamesi. 3. See Huther.
— ἐλπίδα) namely, τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ, as is self-evident after ver. 2. _The hope,
it is true, already exists before the δοκιμῆ ; nevertheless, the more the Chris-
tian has become tried, the more also will hope (which the ἀδόκιμος loses) con-

1Seea climax of description, similar in
point of form in the Tractat. MW 9, 15
(see Surenh. III. 309): ‘‘ Providentia parit
alacritatem, alacritas, innocentiam, inno-
centia puritatem, puritas abstinentiam, ab-
stinentia sanctitatem, sanctitas modestiam,
modestia timorem, timor sceleris pieta-
tem, pietas spiritum sanctum, et spiritus
sanctus resurrectionem mortuorum.” In
contrast with this, how fervent, succinct,

and full of life is the climax in our passage !
For other chains of climactic succession,
see Vili. 29 ff., x. 14 ff. ; 2 Pet. i. 5 ff.

3 Examples of the usage (ver. 11, viii. 23,
ix. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 19) may be seen in Kypke,
II. p. 165 ; Vigerus. ed. Herm. Ὁ. 543; Heind.
and Stallb. ad Phaed. p. 107 B. Comp.
Legg. vi. p. 752 A; Men. p. 71 B.

3‘*In ratione bene considerata stabilis
et perpetua permansio,” Cic. de inv. li. 54,

184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

sciously possess him. Comp. Jamesi. 12. Hope is therefore present, and
yet withal is produced by the emergence of the δοκιμή, just as faith may be
present, and yet be still further produced through something emerging
(John ii. 11).1— Observe further, how widely removed from all fanatical
pride in suffering is the reason assigned with conscious clearness for the
Christian καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι in our passage. In it the ἐλπίς is uniformly
meant and designated as the highest subjective blessing of the justified person,
who is assured of the glorious consummation (not in ver. 3 f. as conduct and
only in ver. 2 as blessing, as Hofmann thinks).’

Ver. 5. Ἢ δὲ ἐλπίς] not, ‘‘ the hope thus established” (Oecumenius, Olshau-
sen, Stélting), but, in accordance with the analogy of the preceding ele-
ments, and without any excluding limitation, the hope (of glory), as such,
consequently the Christian hope. This deceives no one who has it. It is
self-evident, and the proof that follows gives information as to the fact, that
this is uttered in the consciousness and out of the inward assurance of real
living justification by faith.* — οὐ καταισχύνει] maketh not ashamed, i.e. ““ ha-
bet certissimum salutis (of the thing hoped for) exitum,” Calvin, as will be
shown at the judgment. ““ Spes erit res,” Bengel. Comp. ix. 33 ; Ecclus.
li. 10 ; Bar. vi. 39 ; Ps. xxii. 6. Comp. also Plat. Conv. p. 183 ἘΠ, λόγους
Polit. p. 268 Ὁ ; Dem. 314, 9. The expression
of triumphant certainty in the present is not to be removed by changing it
into the futwre (Hofmann, who would read καταισχυνει). --- ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ
x.T.A.] Ground of ἡ δὲ ἐλπίς ob καταισχ. The divine love,‘ effectually present
in the heart through the Holy Spirit, is to the Christian consciousness of
faith the sure pledge that we do not hope in vain and so as to be put to
shame at last, but that God will on the contrary fulfil our hope. Θεοῦ is
the genitive of the subject ; the love of God to us (so most expositors follow-
ing Origen, Chrysostom, and Luther), not of the object : love to God (Theo-
doret, Augustine, Anselm, and others ; including Klee, Gléckler, Umbreit,
Hofmann, Stélting), which appears from ver. 8, as incorrect.* Comp. viii.
39 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. As respects the justified, the wrath of God has given
place to His Jove, which has its presence in them through the Spirit, its
dwelling and sphere of action in believing hearts ; and thus it is to them,
like the Spirit Himself, ἀῤῥαβών of the hoped-for δόξα, 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5. —
ἐκκέχυται) Figure for abundant, living effective communication (Acts ii. 17,
x. 45). The idea of abundance is already implied in the sensuous image of
outpouring, but may also, as in Tit. iii. 6, be specially expressed.* — ἐν ταῖς
καρδίαις] denotes, in accordance with the expression of the completed fact,
the being spread abroad in the heart (motus in loco). Comp. LXX. Ps. xlv.
2. — διὰ πνεύματος κ.τ.λ.} Through the agency of the Spirit bestowed on us,

καὶ ὑποσχέσεις καταισχύνας.

1 Comp. Lipsius, Recht ογ 1 γεηρϑῖ., p. 207 f.

2 Comp. the ἡδεῖα ἐλπίς, Which ἀεὶ πάρεστι,
in contrast to the ζῆν μετὰ κακῆς ἐλπίδος in
Plato, Rep. p. 331 A.

3 Comp. Diisterdieck in the Jahrb. 7. D.
Th. 1870, p. 668 ff.

#As is well said by Calovius: ‘‘ quae
charitas effusa in nobis non qua inhaesionem

subjectivam, sed qua manifestationem et qua
éffectum vel sensu ejusdem in cordibus
nostris effusum.’? Comp. Melanchthon
(against Osiander).

5 Among Catholics this explanation of ac-
tive love was favoured by the doctrine of
the justitia infusa.

δ. Comp. generally Suicer, 7hes. I. p. 1075.

CHAP. V., 6. 185
who is the principle of the real self-communication of God, the divine love
is also poured out ii our hearts ; see viii. 15, 16 ; Gal. iv. 6.

Ver. 6. Objective actual proof of this ἀγάπῃ τ. Θεοῦ, which through the
Spirit fills our hear. Comp. as to the argument viii. 39. ‘‘ Mor Christ,
when we were yet wea, at the right time died for the wngodly.” -- - ἔτι] can in
no case belong to ἀπέθανε (Stdlting), but neither does it give occasion for
any conjecture (Fritzsche : 7 τί). Paul should perhaps have written : ἔτι
yap ὄντων qu. ἀσθενῶν Χριστός k.7.A., OF : Χριστὸς yap ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι
k.t.A. (hence the second ἔτε in Lachmann) ; but amidst the collision of em-
phasis between ἔτε and the subject both present to his mind, he has ex-
pressed himself inexactly, so that now ἔτι seems to belong to Χριστός, and
yet in sense necessarily belongs, as in ver. 8, to ὄντων x.t.2.1 To get rid of this
irregularity, Seb. Schmid, Oeder, Koppe, and Flatt have taken ἔτει as insuper,
and that either in the sense of adeo (Koppe, also Schrader), which however
it never means, not even in Luke xiv. 26 ; or so that a “for further, for
moreover” (see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 119) introduces a second argument for ἡ
δὲ ἐλπὶς ov καταισχ. (Flatt, also Baumgarten-Crusius). Against this latter
construction ver. 8 is decisive, from which it is clear that vv. 6-8 are meant
to be nothing else than the proof of the ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ. On ἔτι itself, with the
imperfect participle in the sense of tune adhuc, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1.
p- 698. It indicates the continued existence, which the earlier condition
still had.? — dvtav ἡμ. ἀσθενῶν] when we were still (ἔτι) without strength, still
had not the forces of the true spiritual life, which we could only receive
through the Holy Ghost. The sinfulness is purposely described as weakness

1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 503 E: ἔτι δὴ ὃ τότε
παρεῖμεν νῦν λέγομεν ; Ὁ. 863 D: οἱ δ᾽ ἔτι τούτων
μακροτέρους ἀποτείνουσι μισϑούς (Where ἔτι
ought to stand before μακρ.). Achill. Tat.
ν. 18 : ἐγὼ δὲ ἔτι coi ταῦτα γράφω παρϑένος, and
see Winer, p. 515 LE. T. 553). Buttmann,
neut. Gr. Ὁ. 333 f. [E. T. 389] ; and Fritzsche
in loc. Van Hengel decides in favour
of the reading with the double ἔτι (Gries-
bach, Lachmann, see the critical remarks) ;
he thinks that Paul had merely wished to
say: ἔτι yap X. κατὰ καιρ. ὑπ. ἀσεβ. ἀπέϑ., but
had in dictation for the sake of clearness
inserted after Χριστός the words ὄντων ἡμῶν
ἀσϑ. ἔτι. Mehring also follows Lachmann’s
reading. He thinks that Paul intended to
write, with emphatic repetition of the ἔτι:
ἔτι yap Χριστὸς, ἔτι ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέϑανε, but
interrupted the sentence by the insertion
of ὄντων ἡμ. aod. Ewald, holding ei yap or
εἴγε to be the original (see critical remarks)
and then reading ἔτι after ἀσϑενῶν, finds in
ver. 9 the apodosis of ver. 6, and takes vv.
7,8 as a parenthesis. Comp. also Usteri,
Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 119. Th. Schott also follows
the reading εἰ yap (and after aod: ἔτι), but
finds the apodosis so early as ver. 6, by
supplying after aod. ἔτι : ἀπέϑανε ; whereas

Hofmann (in his Schriftbew. II. Ὁ. 347), fol-
lowing the same reading, like Ewald, made
ver. 9 fill the place of the apodosis, but now
prefers toread ἔτι at the beginning as well
as also after ἀσϑενῶν, and to punctuate
thus: ἔτι γ. Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσϑενῶν, ἔτι
κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπ. ἀσεβ. ἀπέϑ. With this read-
ing Hofmann thinks that the second ἔτι be-
gins the sentence anew, so that with
Χριστὸς ἀπέϑανεν an ἔτι stands twice, the
first referring to ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσϑενῶν, and
the second to ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν. But itis self-
evident that thus the difficulty is only
doubled, because ἔτει would both times be
erroneously placed, which would yield, es-
pecially in the case of the second ἔτι, ἃ
strange and in fact intolerable confusion,
since there would stand just beside it a
definition of time (κατὰ καιρόν), to which
nevertheless the word elsewhere, so fre-
quently used with definitions of time, is
not intended to apply—a fact which is not
to be disguised by subtleties. Marcker
also would read ἔτι twice, but render the
first ἔτι ‘* moreover,’ which, however,
would be without reference in the text.

3 Baeumlein, p. 118; Schneider, ad Plat.
Rep. Ὁ. 449 Ο.

180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

(need of help), in order to characterize it as the motive for the love ef God
interfering to save. The idea of disease (Theodoret : τῇ; ἀσεβείας περικειμένων
τὴν νόσον ; comp. Theophylact, Umbreit, and others), or that of minority
(van Hengel), is not suggested by anything in the context. — κατὰ καιρόν]
may either (1) be rendered according to the time, according to the nature of
the time, so that with Erasmus, Luther, Flacius, Castalio, Pareus, Seb.
Schmid, also Schrader and Th. Schott, it would have to be connected with
ἀσθ. ;1 or (2) it may belong to ὑπὲρ ἀσεβ. ἀπέθανε, and mean, in, accordance
with the context, either at the appointed time (Gal. iv. 4), as it is here taken
usually, also by de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Maier, Baumgarten-Crusius ;
or (3) at the proper time (see Kypke) ;? the same as ἐν καιρῷ, ἐς καιρόν, ἐπὶ
καιροῦ ; Phavorinus : κατὰ τὸν εὔκαιρον Kk. προσήκοντα καιρόν ; and so the bare
καιρόν (Bernhardy, p. 117), equivalent to καιρίως, the opposite of ἀπὸ καιροῦ
and παρὰ καιρόν. In the jirst case, however, x. x. would either assign to the
ἀσθ. an inappropriate excuse, which would not even be true, since the ἀσθένεια
has always obtained since the fall (ver. 13) ; or, if it was meant directly to
disparage the pre-Christian age (Flacius, ‘‘ ante omnem nostram pietatem,”
comp. Stélting and Hofmann), it would characterize it much too weakly.
In the second case an element not directly occasioned by the connection
(proof of God’s love) would present itself. Therefore the ἐν interpre-
tation alone : at the right time (so Ewald and van Hengel) is to be retained.
The death of Jesus for the ungodly took place at the proper season, because,
had it not taken place then, they would, instead of the divine grace, have
experienced the final righteous outbreak of divine wrath, seeing that the
time of the πάρεσις, 111. 25, and of the ἀνοχή of God had come to an end.
Comp. the idea of the πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν, Eph. i. 10; Gal. iv. 4. Now or
never was the time for saving the ἀσεβεῖς ; now or never was the καιρὸς δεκτός,
2 Cor. vi. 2; and God’s love did not suffer the right time for their salvation
to elapse, but sent Christ to die for them the sacrificial death of atonement. *

— ὑπέρ] for, for the benefit of *
the object of Christ’s death.

1Comp. Stdlting: “conformably to the
time,” i.e. as it was suitable for the time,
namely, the time of ungodliness. Similarly
Hofmann, ‘‘in consideration of the time,”
which was atime of godlessness, ‘* without
the fear of God on the part of individuals
making any change thereon.”

2 Comp. Pind. Jsthm. ii. 32; Herod. i. 30;
Lucian, Philops. 21; LXX. Is. lx. 22; Job v.
16 5 xxxix. 18; Jer. v. 24.

3 According to my former explanation of
the passage the meaning would be, that, if
Christ had appeared and died later, they
would have perished unredeemed in their
ἀσϑένεια, and would have had no share in
the act of atonement. But this view is un-
tenable; because Paul cannot have looked
on the divine proof of love, given in the re-
deeming death of Christ, otherwise than in

So in all passages where there is mention of
Luke xxii. 19, 20; Rom. viii. 32, xiv. 15; 1

a quite general light, 8.6. as given to all
mankind, as it appears everywhere in the
N. T. since John iii. 16. Comp. Philippi,
with whose view I now in substance con-
cur, although in κατὰ καιρόν, by explaining
it as ‘‘ seasonably,”’ I find more directly an
element of the dove, which the context pro-
poses to exhibit.

4 Comp. Eur. Ale. 701: μὴ ϑνῆσκ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦδ᾽
ἀνδρὸς οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ πρὸ σοῦ, ph. A. 13889; Soph.
Trach. 705; Aj. 1290; Plat. Conv. p. 179 Β:
ἐϑελήσασα μόνη ὑπὲρ TOD αὑτῆς ἀνδρὸς ἀποϑα-
very; Dem. 690, 18; Xen. Cyr. vii. 4, 9 f.;
Isoer. iv. 77; Dio. Cass. xiv. 18; Ecclus.
XXix. 15: ἔδωκε yap THY ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ σοῦ ;
2 Mace. vi. 28, vii. 9, viii. 21; comp. also
Ignatius, σα Rom. 4: ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποϑνήσκω.
Comp. the compound ὑπερϑνήσκειν with
genit., so frequent especially in Euripides.

CHARS ὙΦ ἢ .8: 187
Cor, ts 9. (ΟΣ. γα 14s Gal. “anh isis) Ephs wis) 1 Whess. νον θ 10.5.1
Tim, ii. 6; Tit. ii. 14.1. That Paul did not intend by ὑπέρ to convey the
meaning instead of, is shown partly by the fact, that while he indeed some-
times exchanges it for the synonymous? περί (Gal. i. 4, like Matt. xxvi. 20 ;
Mark xiv. 25), he does not once use instead of it the unambiguous ἀντί
(Matt. xx. 28), which must nevertheless have suggested itself to him most
naturally ; and partly by the fact, that with ὑπέρ as well as with περί he
puts not invariably the genitive of the person, but sometimes that of the
thing (ἁμαρτιῶν), in which case it would be impossible to explain the prepo-
sition by instead of (viii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 3). It is true that he has certainly
regarded the death of Jesus as an act furnishing the satisfactio vicaria, as is
clear from the fact that this bloody death was accounted by him as an expi-
atory sacrifice (iii. 25; Eph. v. 2; Steiger on 1 Pet. p. 342 f.), comp.
ἀντίλυτρον in 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; but in no passage has he expressed the substitu-
tionary relation through the preposition. On the contrary his constant con-
ception is this : the sacrificial death of Jesus, taking the place of the pun-
ishment of men, and satisfying divine justice, took place as such im com-
modum (ὑπέρ, περί) of men, or—which is the same thing—on account of their
sins (in gratiam), in order to expiate them (περί or ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν). This we
hold against Flatt, Olshausen, Winzer, Reithmayr, Bisping, who take ὑπέρ
as loco. That ὑπέρ must at least be understood as loco in Gal. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor.
v. 14 (notwithstanding ver. 15); 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Riickert, Fritzsche, Phi-
lippi), is not correct. See on Gal. 1.6. and 2 Cor. Jc. ; Philem. 13 is not
here a case in point. —dce3év] Paul did not write ἡμῶν, in order that after
the need of help (ἀσθενῶν) the unworthiness might also be made apparent ;
ἀσεβῶν is the category, to which the ἡμεῖς have belonged, and the strong ex-
pression (comp. iv. 5) is selected, in order now, through the contrast, to set
forth the more prominently the divine love in its very strength.

Vv. 7, 8. Illustrative description (γάρ) of this dying ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν as the
practical demonstration of the divine love (ver. 8). Observe the syllogistic
relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 ; which is apparent through the emphatic ἑαυτοῦ.
— Scarce, namely, for a righteous man (not to mention for ἀσεβεῖς) will any one
die. This very contrast to the ἀσεβεῖς completely shuts out the neuter inter-
pretation of δικαίου (‘‘ pro re justa,” Melanchthon, comp. Olshausen, Jerome,
Erasmus, Annot., Luther). On account of the same contrast, consequently
because of the parallel between ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ and ὑπὲρ δικαίου, and because
the context generally has to do only with the dying for persons, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ
also is to be taken not as neuter,* but as masculine ; and the article denotes
the definite ἀγαθός who is in question in the case concerned. Since, moreover,
an essential distinction between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός * is neither implied in the

1See also Ritschl in the Jahrb. fiir
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 242.

2 Bremi ad Dem. Οἱ. iii. 5, p. 188, Goth.

3 Koster also in the Stud. u. Kvrit. 1854, p.
312, has taken both words as neuter:
“hardly does one die for others for the
sake of their (mere) right; sooner at all
events for the sake of the manifestly good,

which they have.”

4 Comp. on the contrary Matt. v. 45;
further, ἀνὴρ ἀγαϑὺὸς x. δίκαιος in Luke xxiii.
50; ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία x. δικαία x, ayady in Rom,
Vii. 12; ὃ δίκαιος ἡμῖν ἀναπέφανται ὧν ἀγαϑός
τε καὶ σοφός, Aesch. Sept. 576; Eur. Hipp.
427 ; Thes. fr. viii. 2.

188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

context, where on the contrary the contrast to both is ἀσεβῶν and ἁμαρτωλῶν,
nor is in the least hinted at by Paul, no explanation is admissible that is
based on an essential difference of idea in the two words ; such as that τοῦ
ἀγαθοῦ should be held to express something different from or higher than
Jixaiov. Therefore the following is the only explanation that presents itself
as comformable to the words and context: After Paul has said that one
will hardly die for a righteous man, he wishes to add, by way of confirma-
tion (γάρ), that cases of the undertaking such a death might possibly occur, and
expresses this in the form : for perhaps for the good man one even takes it wpon
him to die. Thus the previously asserted ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται, although
one assents to it viv et aegre, is yet said with reason,—it may perhaps occur.
Paul has not however written τοῦ δικαίου in the second clause of the verse,
as he might have done, but introduces τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, and prefixes it, In order
now to make still more apparent, in the interest of the contrast, the category
of the quality of the person for whom one may perhaps venture this self-
sacrifice. This is substantially the view arrived at by Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, Erasmus, in the Paraphr., Beza, Calvin (‘‘rarissimum sane
inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo mori quis sustineat guamquam
allud nonnunquam accidere possit”), Castalio, Calovius, and others ; recently
again by Fritzsche (also Oltramare and Reithmayr) ; formerly also by Hof-
mann (in his Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 348). It has been wrongly alleged that it
makes the second half of the verse superfluous (de Wette) and weakening
_ (K6lner and Riickert) ; on the contrary, in granting what may certainly
' now and again occur, it the more emphatically paves the way for the con-
trast which is to follow, that God has caused Christ to die for quite other
persons than the δικαίους and ayaotc—for us sinners. Groundless also is the
objection (of van Hengel), that in Paul’s writings the repeated τὶς always
denotes different subjects ; the indefinite ric, one, any one, may indeed even
here represent in the concrete application different subjects or the same.
Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20. And, evenif δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ be regarded as two
distinct conceptions, may not the second ric be the same with the first ? But
the perfect accordance with the words and context, which is only found in
the exposition offered, shuts out every other. Among the explanations thus
excluded, are: (1) Those which take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as neuter, like the render-
ing of Jerome, Erasmus, Annot. (‘‘bonitatem”), Luther, Melanchthon (‘‘ pro
bona et suavi re, i.e. incitati cupiditate aut opinione magnae utilitatis”),
and more recently Riickert (‘‘for the good, i.e. for what he calls his highest
good”), Mehring (‘‘ for for his own advantage some one perhaps risks even life”) ;
now also Hofmann (‘‘ what is én itself and really good... . a moral value,
for which, when it is endangered, one sacrifices life, in order not to let it
perish”’). — (2) Those explanations which indeed take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ properly as
masculine, but yet give self-invented distinctions of idea in reference to
δικαίου : namely (a), the exposition, that ὁ ἀγαθός means the benefactor : hardly
does any one die for a righteous man (who stands in no closer relation to him) ;
Sor for his benefactor one dares perchance (out of gratitude) to die. So Flacius,’

1 Clav. I. Ὁ: 693. ‘* Vix accidit, ut quis eo tamen, gué alicut valde est utilis, forsitan
suam vitam profundat pro justissimis ; pro mori non recuset.”’

CHAPS γον co 189

Knatchbull, Estius, Hammond, Clericus, Heumann, Wolf, and others ; in-
cluding Koppe, Tholuck, Winer, Benecke, Reiche, Gliéckler, Krehl, Maier,
Umbreit, Bisping, Lechler, and Jatho. They take the article with ἀγαθοῦ
as: the benefactor whom he has, against which nothing can be objected
(Bernhardy, p. 315). But we may object that we cannot at all see why
Paul should not have expressed benefactor by the very current and definite
term εὐεργέτης ; and that ἀγαθός must have obtained the specific sense of be-
neficence (as in Matt. xx. 15 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3, 4, al. ap. Dorvill. ad Charit.
p. 722; and Tholuck 7x loc. from the context—a want, which the mere ar-
ticle cannot supply (in opposition to Reiche). Hence, in order to gain for
ἀγαθός the sense beneficent in keeping with the context, δίκαιος would have to
be taken in the narrower sense as just (with Wetstein and Olshausen), so as
to yield a climax from the just man to the benevolent (who renders more than
the mere obligation of right binds him to do).’ But in ver. 8 there is no
reference to ἀγαθός in the sense assumed ; and the narrower sense of δίκαιος
is at variance with the contrasting ἁμαρτωλῶν in ver. 8, which demands for
dix precisely the wider meaning (righteous). Besides the prominence which
Paul intends to give to the love of God, which caused Christ to die for sin-
ners, while a man hardly dies for a δίκαιος, is weakened just in proportion
as the sense of δίκαιος is narrowed. The whole interpretation is a forced
one, inconsistent with the undefined τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ itself as well as with the en-
tire context. — (ὦ) No better are the explanations which find in τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ
a greater degree of morality than in δικαίου, consequently a man more worthy
of haying life sacrificed for him. So, but with what varied distinctions !
especially Ambrosiaster (the δίκαιος is such ezercitio, the ἀγαθός natura), Ben-
gel (dix. homo innowius, ὁ ἀγαθός, omnibus pietatis numeris absolutus. ... Vv. δ.
pater patriae), Michaelis, Olshausen, K6llner (δέκ. : legally just, ἀγαθ. : per-
fectly good and upright), de Wette dix. : irreproachable, aya. : the noble),
Philippi and Th. Schott (both substantially agreeing with de Wette),
also van Hengel (dix. : probus coram Deo, i.e. venerabilis, dya9. : bonus in
hominum oculis, i.e. amabilis), and Ewald, according to whom δέκ. is he
‘‘who, in a definite case accused unto death, is nevertheless innocent in
that particular case,” while the ἀγαθός is “πο, who not only in one such in-
dividual suit, but predominantly in his whole life, is purely useful to others
and guiltless in himself 1.) 5 comp. St6lting, who finds in dix. the honest up-
right man, and in ἀγαθός him whom we personally esteem and love. But all
these distinctions of idea are artificially created and brought in without any
hint from the context.* — On τάχα, fortasse, perhaps indeed, expressing possi-

1 An apt illustration of this would be
Cicero, de off. iii. 15: “51 vir bonus is est,

ff., also rightly recognizes this; but ex-
plains the second half, contrary to the

qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini,
recte justum virum, bonwm non facile re-
periemus.”

2 Ewald supposes an allusion to cases like
these in 1 Sam. xiv. 45, xx. 17; but that it is
also possible, that Paul might have in view
Gentile examples that were known to him-
self and the readers.

3 Kunze, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1850, p. 407

words, as if the proposition were expressed
conditionally (εἰ καί), ‘for if even some one
lightly ventures to die for the good man,
still however God proves his love,” ete.
Comp. Erasm. Paraphr.—Miircker explains
itin the sense of one friend dying for an-
other ; and suggests that Paul was thinking
of the example of Damon and Pythias.

190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

bility not without doubt, comp. Xen. Anab. v. 2, 17; Philem. 15 ; Wisd.
xiii. 6, xiv. 19. In classic authors most frequently τάχ᾽ ἄν. --- καὶ τολμᾷ]
etiam sustinet, he has even the courage,’ can prevail upon himself, audet. The
καί is the also of the corresponding relation. In presence of the good man,
he ventures also to die for him. — We may add, that the words from ὑπὲρ yap
τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ down to ἀποθανεῖν are not to be put (with Lachmann) in a paren-
thesis, since, though they form only a subordinate confirmatory clause, they
cause no interruption in the construction. — Ver. 8. δέ] Not antithetical
(‘‘such are men, but such is God,” Mehring), as if the sentence began with
ὁ δὲ Θεός, but rather carrying it onward, namely, to the middle term of the
syllogism (the minor proposition), from which then the conclusion, ver. 9,
is designed to result. — συνίστησι] proves, as in iii. 5. The accomplished fact
of the atoning death is conceived according to its abiding effect of setting
forth clearly the divine love ; hence the present. The emphasis indeed -
lies in the first instance on συνίστησι (for from this proof as such a further
inference is then to be drawn), but passes on strengthened to τὴν ἑαυτοῦ be-
cause it must be God’s own love, authenticating itself in the death of Christ,
that gives us the assurance to be expressed in ver. 9. God Himself, out of
His love for men, has given Christ to a death of atonement ; iii. 24, viii.
32; Eph. ii. 4 ; 2 Thess. 11, 16 ; John 11. 16 ; 1 John iv. 10e¢ al. To find
in τ. ἑαυτοῦ ἀγαπ. the contrast to owr love towards God (Hofmann ; comp.
on ver. 5) is quite opposed to the context, which exhibits the divine demon-
stration of love in Christ’s deed of love. That is the clear relation of ver.
8 to ver. 6 f., from which then the blessed inference is drawn in ver. 9.
Hence we are not to begin a new connection with συνίστησι δέ κ.τ.λ. (Hofmann,
‘*God lets us know, and gives us to experience that He loves us ; and this
He does, because Christ,” etc.). The ὅτε cannot be the motive of God for His
συνίστησι K.T.A., since He has already given Christ out of love ; it is meant on
the contrary to specify the actual ground of the knowledge of the divine proof
of love (=ei¢ ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, comp. on 2 Cor. i. 18 ; John ii. 18). --- εἰς ἡμᾶς]
belongs to ovvior. — ἔτι ἁμαρτ. ὄντ. ἡμ.} For only through the atoning death
of Christ have we become δικαιωθέντες. See ver. 9.

Ver. 9. To prove that hope maketh not ashamed (ver. 5), Paul had laid
stress on the possession of the divine love in the heart (ver. 5) ; then he had
proved and characterized this divine love itself from the death of Christ
(vv. 6-8) ; and he now again infers, from this divine display of love, from
the death of Christ, that the hoped-for eternal salvation is all the more as- ~
sured to us. — πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον] The conclusion does not proceed a minori ad
majus (Estius and many, including Mehring), but, since the point now turns
on the carrying out of the divine act of atonement, ὦ majori (vv. 6-8) ad

minus (ver. 9). — πολλῷ μᾶλλον] expresses the enhancement of certainty, as
in vv. 15-17 : much less therefore can it be doubted that, etc. ; viv stands in
reference to ἔτε ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν in ver. 8. — σωθησόμεθα ἀπὸ τ. ὀργῆς] we

shall be rescued from the divine wrath (1 Thess. i. 10 ; comp. Matt. iii. 7),

1 Respecting τολμᾶν see Wetstein, who Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 B; Monk,
properly defines it: “ quidpiam grave in ad Hur. Alc. 284; Jacobs in Addit. ad Athen.
animum inducere et sibiimperare.’”’ Comp. p. 309 f.

CHAP. V., 10. 191

so that the latter, which issues forth at the last judgment (ii. 5, iii. 5), does
not affect us. Comp. Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621] ; Acts ii. 40. This negative
expression for the attainment of the hoped-for δόξα renders the inference
more obvious and convincing. For the positive expression see 2 Tim. iv.
18, — δέ αὐτοῦ] 1.6. through the operation of the exalted Christ, ἐν τῇ ζωῇ
αὐτοῦ, ver. 10. — Faith, as the ληπτικόν of justification, is understood as a
matter of course (ver. 1), but is not mentioned here, because only what has
been accomplished by God through Christ is taken into consideration. If
faith were in the judgment of God the anticipation of moral perfection (but
see note on i. 17), least of all could it have been left unmentioned. Observe
also how Paul has justification in view asa wnity, without different degrees
or stages.

Ver. 10. More special development (yap, namely) of ver. 9. — ἐχθροί]
namely, of God, as is clear from κατηλλ. τῷ Θεῷ. But it is not to be taken in
an active sense (hostile to God, as by Riickert, Baur, Reithmayr, van Hengel,
‘Mehring, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1868, p. 515 f. ; Weber,
com Zorne Gottes, p. 293, and others ; for Christ’s death did not remove the
enmity of men against God, but, as that which procured their pardon on
the part of God, it did away with the enmity of God against men, and there-
upon the cessation of the enmity of men towards God ensued as the moral
consequence brought about by faith. And, with that active conception,
how could Paul properly have inferred his 70/4 μᾶλλον x.t.2., since in point
of fact the certainty of the σωθησόμεθα is based on our standing in friendship
(grace) with God, and not on our being friendly towards God ? Hence the +
passive explanation alone is correct (Calvin and others, including Reiche,
Fritzsche, Tholuck, Kreh, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Philippi, Hof-
mann : enemies of God, i.e. those against whom the holy θεοσεχθρία, the ὀργῇ
of God on account of sin, is directed ; θεοστυγεῖς, i. 80 3 τέκνα ὀργῆς, Eph. ii.
3. Comp. xi. 28; and see on Col. i. 21.’ This does not contradict the
ἀγάπη Θεοῦ praised in ver. 8 (as Riickert objects), since the very arrange-
ment, which God made by the death of Jesus for abandoning His enmity
against sinful men without detriment to His holiness, was the highest proof
of His love for us (not for our sins). — Consequently κατηλλάγημεν and
καταλλαγέντες must also be taken not actively, but passively : reconciled with
God, so that He is no longer hostile towards us, but has on the contrary, on
account of the death of His (beloved) Son, abandoned His wrath against
us, and we, on the other hand, have become partakers in His grace and’
favour ; for the positive assertion (comp. ver. 1 f.), which is applicable to all
believing individuals (ver. 8), must not be weakened into the negative and
general conception ‘‘ that Christians have not God against them” (Hofmann).
See on Col. i. 21 and on 2 Cor. v. 18. Tittmann’s distinction between
διαλλάττειν and καταλλάττειν (see on Matt. v. 24) is as arbitrary as that of
Mehring, who makes the former denote the outward and the latter the in-
ward reconciliation.* — ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ) by His life ; more precise specification

. 1 Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeit- 2 Against this view, comp. also Philippi’s
schr. 1872, p. 182. Glaubenslehre, Il. 2, p. 270 ff.

.

192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

of the import of δ αὐτοῦ in ver. 9 ; therefore not ‘‘cum vitae ejus simus
participes” (van Hengel, comp. Ewald). The death of Jesus effected our
reconciliation ; ali the less can His exalted 7ife leave our deliverance unfin-
ished. The living Christ cannot leave what His death effected without final
success. This however is accomplished not merely through His intercession,
viii. 84 (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius), but also through His whole work-
ing in His kingly office for His believers up to the completion of His work
and kingdom, 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff.

Ver. 11. Οὐ μόνον δέ] Since καυχώμενοι cannot stand for the finite tense (as,
following Luther, Beza, and others, Tholuck and Philippi still would have
it) ov μόνον dé cannot be supplemented by σωθησόμεθα (Fritzsche, Krehl,
Reithmayr, Winer, p. 329, 543 [E. T. 351, 583], following Chrysostom), so
as to make Paul say : we shall be not only saved (actually in itself), but also
saved in such a way that we glory, etc. Moreover, the present καυχᾶσθαι
could not supply any modal definition at all of the future σωθησόμεθα. No,
the participle καυχώμ. compels us to conceive as supplied to the elliptical οὐ
μόνον dé (comp. on ver. 3) the previous participle καταλλαγέντες (Koller,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann ; formerly also Fritzsche) ; every other ex-
pedient is arbitrary. This supplement however, according to which the
two participles answer to each other, is confirmed by the concluding refrain :
dv ov νῦν τ. καταλλ. ἐλάβ., which is an echo of the καταλλαγέντες understood
with οὐ μόνον δέ. Accordingly we must render : not merely however as recon-
ciled, but also as those who glory, etc. Thus the meaning is brought out,
that the certainty of the σωθήσεσθαι ἐν τ. ζωῇ αὐτοῦ (ver. 10) is not only based
on the objective ground of the accomplished reconciliation, but has also
subjectively its corresponding vital expression in the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν τῷ θεᾷ
x.T.A., in which the lofty feeling of the Christian’s salvation reveals itself.—
ἐν τῷ Θεῷ] Luther’s gloss is apt: ‘‘that God is ours, and we are His, and
that we have in all confidence all blessings in common from Him and with
Him.” That is the bold and joyful triwmph of those sure of salvation. —
διὰ τ. κυρίου κ.τ.2.1] This glorying is brought about through Christ, because
He is the author of our new relation to God ; hence: dv οὗ viv τ. καταλλ.
ἐλάβ. The latter is that κατηλλάγημεν of ver. 10 in its subjective reception
which has taken place by faith. —viv is to be taken here (differently from
ver. 9) in contrast, not to pre-Christian times (Stélting), but to the future
glory, in reference to which the reconciliation received in the present time
(continuing from the conversion of the subjects of it to Christ) is conceived
as its actual ground of certainty.

Vv. 12-19. Parallel drawn between the salvation in Christ and the ruin that
has come through Adam. {See Note LI. p. 221.] — πἰπὼν, ὅτι ἐδικαίωσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ
Χριστὸς, ἀνατρέχει ἐπὶ τὴν pilav τοῦ κακοῦ, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὸν θάνα-

1 Most arbitrary of all is the view of Meh-
ring, that ov μόνον δέ refers back to ἐν τῇ
ζωῇ αὐτοῦ ; and that Paul would say: not
merely on the /ife of Christ do we place our
hope, but also onthe fact that we now
glory in our unity with God(?). Th. Schott

refers it to σωϑησόμεϑα, but seeks to make
καυχώμενοι Suitable by referring it to the
entire time, in which the salvation is still
future, as if therefore Paul had written:
οὐ μόνον δέ σωϑησόμεϑα, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν, OF ἐν TO
νῦν καιρῷ καυχώμεϑα.

s

ΘΈΓΑΙΡ. V.,, 19. 199
τον, καὶ δείκνυσιν ὅτε ταῦτα τὰ dbo δ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Addu, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν
κόσμον. . . . . καὶ αὖ de ἑνὸς ἀνῃρέθησαν ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Theophylact ;
comp. Chrysostom, who compares the Apostle here with the physician who
penetrates to the sowrce-of the evil. Thus the perfect objectivity of the sal-
vation, which man has simply to receive, but in no way to earn, and of
which the Apostle has been treating since chap. i. 17, is, by way of a grand
conclusion for the section, set forth afresh in fullest light, and represented
in its deepest and most comprehensive connection with the history of the
world. The whole μυστήριον of the divine plan of salvation and its history
is still to be unfolded before the eyes of the reader ere the moral results
that are associated with it are developed in chap. vi.

Ver. 12." Διὰ τοῦτο] Therefore, because, namely, we have received through
Christ the καταλλαγή and the assurance of eternal salvation, ver. 11. The
assumption that it refers back to the whole discussion from chap. i. 17
(held by many, including Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Holsten,
Picard) is the more unnecessary, the more naturally the idea of the καταλ-
λαγή itself, just treated of, served to suggest the parallel between Adam
and Christ, and the δέ οὗ τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν in point of fact contains
the summary of the whole doctrine of righteousness and salvation from i.

17 onward ; consequently there is no ground whatever for departing, as to
διὰ τοῦτο, from the connection with what immediately precedes.? This re-

mark also applies in opposition to Hofmann (comp. Stélting and Dietzsch),
who refers it back to the entire train of ideas embraced in vv. 2-11. A re-
capitulation of this is indeed given in the grand concluding thought of
ver. 11, that it is Christ to whom we owe the reconciliation. But Hofmann
quite arbitrarily supposes Paul in διὰ τοῦτο to have had in view an evhorta-
tion to think of Christ conformably to the comparison with Adam, but to
have got no further than this comparison. — ὥσπερ] There is here an ἀναντα-
πόδοτον as in Matt. xxv. 14 ; and 1 Tim. i. 3. The comparison alone is ex-
pressed, but not the thing compared, which was to have followed in an
apodosis corresponding to the ὥσπερ. The illustration, namely, introduced
in vv. 13, 14 of the ἐφ᾽ ¢ πάντες ἥμαρτον now rendered it impossible to add
the second half of the comparison syntactically belonging to the ὥσπερ, and

1 See Schott (on vv. 12-14) in his Opusc. I.
p. 313 ff. ; Borg, Diss. 1839 ; Finkhin the Τ᾽.
Zeitschr. 1830, 1, p. 126 ff. ; Schmid in the
same, 4, p. 161 ff.; Rothe, newer Versuch 6.
Auslegung d. paul. Stelle Rom. v. 12-21,
Wittemb. 1836; J. Miiller, v. ἃ. Svinde, II. p.
481, ed. 5; Aberle in the ¢heol. Quartalschr.
1854, Ὁ. 455 ff.; Ewald, Adam τι. Christus
Rom. vy. 12-21, in the Jahrb. 7. bibl. Wis-
sensch. II. p. 166 ff. ; Picard, Hssai exégét. sur
Tom. vy. 12 ff. Strassb. 1861; Hofmann,
Schriftbew. I. Ὁ. 526 ff.; Ernesti, Urspr. d.
Stinde, Il. Ὁ. 184 ff.; Holsten, z. Hv. ἃ. Paul.
u. Petr. p. 412 ff. ; Stdlting, Zc. p. 19 ff. ;
Kloépper in the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 496 ff. ;
Dietzsch, Adam u. Christus Rom. v. 12 ff.,
Bonn 1871. Compare also Lechler’s apost.

Zeit. p. 102 ff.

3 The close junction with yer. 11 is main-
tained also by Klépper, who unsuitably
however defines the aim of the section, vy.
12-21, to be, to guard the readers against ἃ
timid littleness of faith, as though, notwith-
standing justification, they were still with
reference to the future of judgment not
sure and certain of escaping the divine
wrath ; a timid mind might see in the tribu-
lations anticipations of that wrath, ete.
But how far does the entire confession of
vy. 1-11 stand elevated above all such little-
ness of faith! In the whole connection
this finds no place whatever, and receives
therefore in vy. 12-21 not the slightest men-.
tion or reference.

194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

therefore the Apostle, driven on by the rushing flow of ideas to this point,
from which he can no longer revert to the construction with which he
started, has no hesitation in dropping the latter (comp. generally Buttmann’s
neut. Gr. p. 331 [E. T. 386] ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1097), and in subsequently
bringing in mere/y the main tenor of what is wanting by the relative clause
attached to ’Addéu: ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in ver. 14. This ὅς. ...
μέλλ. 18 consequently the substitute for the omitted apodosis, which, had it
not been supplanted by vv. 13, 14, would have run somewhat thus : so also_
through one man has come righteousness, and through righteousness life, and 80
life has come to all. Calvin, Flacius, Tholuck, Kéllner, Baur, Philippi,
Stdlting, Mangold, Rothe (who however without due ground regards the
breaking off as intended from the outset, in order to avoid sanctioning the
Apokatastasis) find in ὅς ἐστι τύπ. τ. μέλλ., in ver. 14, the resumption and
closing of the comparison,’ not of course in form, but in substance ; com-
pare also Melanchthon. According to Riickert, Fritzsche (in his commen-
tary), and de Wette, Paul has come, after vv. 13, 14, to reflect that the,
comparison begun involved not merely agreement but also diserepancy, and
has accordingly turned aside from the apodosis, which must necessarily
have expressed the equivalence, and inserted instead of it the opposition in
ver. 15. This view is at variance with the entire character of the section,
which indeed bears quite especially the stamp of most careful and acute
premeditation, but shows no signs of Paul’s having been led in the progress
of his thought to the opposite of what he had started with. According to
Mehring, ver. 15, following vv. 13, 14 (which he parenthesises) is meant to
complete the comparison introduced in ver. 12, ver. 15 being thus taken
interrogatively. Against this view, even apart from the inappropriateness
of taking it as a question, the ἀλλ᾽ in ver. 15 is decisive. Winer, p. 503
[E. T. 570] (comp. Fritzsche’s Conject. p. 49), finds the epanorthosis in
πολλῷ μᾶλλον, ver. 15, which is inadmissible, because with ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ in ver.
15 there is introduced the antithetical element, consequently something else
than the affirmative parallel begun in ver. 19. Others have thought that
vv. 13-17 form a parenthesis, so that in ver. 18 the first half of the compar-
ison is resumed, and the second now at length added (Cajetanus, Erasmus,
Schmid, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Heumann, Ch. Schmid, Flatt, and
Reiche). Against this view may be urged not only the unprecedented
length, but still more the contents of the supposed parenthesis, which in
fact already comprehends in itself the parallel under every aspect. In ver.
18 f. we have recapitulation, but not resumption. This much applies also
against Olshausen and Ewald. Others again have held that ver. 12 contains
the protasis and the apodosis completely, taking the latter to begin either
with καὶ οὕτως (Clericus, Wolf, Gléckler), or even with καὶ διά (Erasmus,
Beza, Benecke), both of which views however are at variance with the par-
allel between Adam and Christ which rules the whole of what follows, and

1The objection of Dietzsch, p. 43, that bring forward a very definite special state-
τύπος asserts nothing real regarding the ment regarding the typical relation which
second member of the comparison, is un- he now merely expresses in general terms.
satisfactory, since Paul is just intending to

CHAPS γι} he. 195

are thus in the light of the connection erroneous, although the former by
no means required a trajection (καὶ οὕτως for οὕτω καί). While all the ex-
positors hitherto quoted have taken ὥσπερ as the beginning of the first
member of the parallel, others again have thought that it introduces the
second half of the comparison. So, following Elsner and others, Koppe, who
after διὰ τοῦτο conceives ἐλάβομεν καταλλαγὴν δ αὐτοῦ supplied from ver. 11 ;
so also Umbreit and Th. Schott (for this reason, because we σωθησόμεθα ἐν
τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ, Christ comes by way of contrast to stand just as did Adam).
Similarly Mircker, who attaches διὰ τοῦτο to ver. 11. These expositions are
incorrect, because the wniversality of the Adamite ruin, brought out by
ὥσπερ k.T.4., has no point of comparison in the supplied protasis (the expla-
nation is d/ogical) ; in Gal. iii. 6 the case is different. Notwithstanding van
Hengel (comp. Jatho) thinks that he removes all difficulty by supplying
ἐστί after διὰ τοῦτο ; while Dietzsch, anticipating what follows, suggests the
supplying after διὰ τοῦτο : through one man life has come into the world. — δὲ
ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου] through one man, that is, δ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος, ver. 16. A
single man brought upon all sin and death ; ὦ single man also righteousness
and life. The causal relation is based on the fact that sin, which previously
had no existence whatever in the world, only began to exist in the world (on
earth) by means of the first fall. ve, so far as the matter itself is con-
cerned (Ecclus. xxv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Barnab: Hp. 12),
might as well as Adam be regarded as the εἷς ἄνθρ. ; the latter, because he
sinned as the first man, the former, of whom Pelagius explained it, because
she committed the first transgression. Here however, because Paul’s object
is to compare the One man, who as the bringer of salvation has become the
beginner of the new humanity, with the One man who as beginner of the old
humanity became so destructive, in which collective reference (comp. Hof-
mann’s Schriftbew. I. p. 474) the woman recedes into the background, he has
to derive the entrance of sin into the world from Adam, whom he has in
view in dv ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21 f., 45 f. This is also the
common form of Rabbinical teaching.? — ἡ ἁμαρτία] not : sinfulness, habitus
peceandi (Koppe, Schott, Flatt, Usteri, Olshausen), which the word never
means ; not original sin (Calvin, Flacius, and others following Augustine) ;
but also not merely actual sin in abstracto (Fritzsche : ‘‘nam ante primum
facinus patratum nullum erat facinus’”), but rather what sin is according to
its idea and essence (comp. Hofmann and Stélting), consequently the deter-
mination of the conduct in antagonism to God, conceived however as a force,
as a real power working and manifesting itself—exercising its dominion—
in all cases of concrete sin (comp. ver. 21, vi. 12, 14, vii. 8, 9, 17 al.).
This moral mode of being in antagonism to God became existent in the
human world through the fall of Adam, produced death, and spread death
over all. Thus our verse itself describes the ἁμαρτία as a real objective
power, and in so doing admits only of this explanation. Compare the not
substantially different explanation of Philippi, according to which the

1 Not merely came to light as known sin 2 See Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. IL.
(Schleiermacher, Usteri). See Lechler, p. pisit.
104,

196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

actual sin of the world is meant as having come into the world potentialiter
through Adam ; also Rothe, who conceives it to refer to sin as a principle,
but as active ; and Dietzsch. — On εἰς τ. κόσμον, which applies to the earth
as the dwelling-place of mankind (for in the universe generally sin, the devil,
was already in existence), comp. Wisd. ii. 24, xiv. 14; 2 John 7 ;.Clem.
Oor. 1. 3; Heb. x. 5. Undoubtedly sin by its entrance into the world
came into human nature (Rothe), but this is not asserted here, however de-
cisively our passage stands opposed to the error of Flacius, that man 1s
in any way as respects his essential nature ἁμαρτία." -- The mode in which
the fall took place (through the devil, John viii. 44 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3) did not
here concern the Apostle, who has only to do with the mischievous effect
of it, namely, that it brought ἁμαρτία into the world, etc. —xai διὰ τ. ἁμαρτ.
ὁ θάνατος] scil. εἰς τ. κόσμον εἰσῆλθε. The θάνατος is physical death (Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Augustine, Calovius, Reiche, Fritzsche, Maier, van Hengel,
Képper, Weiss, and many others), viewed as the separation of the soul
from the body and its transference to Hades (not as ‘‘ citation before God’s
judgment,” Mehring), with which however the conception of the φθορά and
ματαιότης Of the κτίσις in ch. viil., very different from the θάνατος of men,
must not be mixed up (as by Dietzsch), which would involve a blending of
dissimilar ideas. The interpretation of bodily death is rendered certain
by ver. 14 as well as by the considerations, that the text gives no hint
of departure from the primary sense of the word; that the reference
to Gen. ii. 17, 111. 19 could not be mistaken by any reader ; and that on
the basis of Genesis it was a universal and undoubted assumption both
in the Jewish and Christian consciousness, that mortality was caused
by Adam’s sin.* Had Paul taken θάνατος in another sense therefore, he
must of necessity have definitely indicated it, in order to be understood. *
This is decisive not only against the Pelagian interpretation of spiritual
death, which Picard has repeated, but also against every combination what-
ever—whether complete (see especially Philippi and Stélting), or partial—of
bodily, moral (comp. νεκρός, Matt. viii. 22), and eternal death (Schmid,
Tholuck, Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr ;
Riickert undecidedly) ; or the whole collective evil, which is the consequence
of sin, as Umbreit and Ewald explain it ; compare Hofmann : ‘‘all that
runs counter to the life that proceeds from God, whether as an occurrence, which
puts an end to the life wrought by God, or as a mode of existence setting in
with such occurrence.” As regards especially the inclusion of the idea of

ready before the fall, only not having yet
attained to objective manifestation.

1 Compare Holsten, zum Hv. d. Paul. u.
Petr. p. 418: who thinks that the unholi-

ness lying dormant in human nature first -

entered actually into the visible world as a
reality in the transgression of Adam ; also
Baur, neut. Theol. p. 191, according to whom
the principle of sin, that from the beginning
had been émmanent in man, only came forth
actually in the παράβασις of the first parent.
In this way sin would not have come into the
world, but must have been in the world al-

2 See Wisd. ii. 24; John viii. 44; 1 Cor. xv.
21; Wetstein and Schoettgen, im /loc.; and
Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenthum, Il. Ὁ.
81 f. Compare respecting Eve, Ecclus.
Xxy. 24.

3 This remark holds also against Mau in
Pelt’s theol. Mitarbd. 1838, 2, who understands
the form of life after the dissolution of the
earthly life.

ΘΗ ΡΟ ΩΣ ΤΩΝ
moral death (the opposite of the spiritual ζω), the words θάνατος and
ἀποθνήσκειν are never used by Paul in this sense ; not even in vii. 10 (see in
loc.), or in 2 Cor. ii. 16, vii. 10, where he is speaking of eternal death.’ The
reference to spiritual death is by no means rendered necessary by the con-
trast of δικαιοσ. ζωῆς in ver. 18, comp. ver. 213 since in fact the death
brought into the world by Adam, although physical, might be contrasted
not merely in a Rabbinical fashion, but also generally in itself, with the Cay
that has come through Christ ; for to this ¢w# belongs also the life of the
glorified body, and it is a life not again subject to death. — καὶ οὕτως) and
in such manner, i.e. in symmetrical correspondence with this connection
between the sin that entered by one man and the death occasioned by it.
Fuller explanation is then given, by the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, respecting the
emphatically prefixed εἰς πάντας, to whom death, as the effect of that first
sin of the One, had penetrated. Since οὕτως sums up the state of the case
previously*expressed (comp. e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17) any further
generalization of its reference can only be arbitrary (Stélting : ‘‘ through
sin”). Even the explanation : ‘‘in virtue of the causal connection between
sin and death” (Philippi and many others) is too general. The οὕτως, in
fact, recapitulates the historical state of the case just presented, so far as it
specifies the mode in which death has come to al/, namely, in this way, that
the One sinned and thereby brought into the world the death, which conse-
quently became the lot of all. — διῆλθεν] came throughout (Luke v. 15).
This is the progress of the εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε in its extension to all indi-
viduals, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπ. [see Note LIL. p. 222], which in contrast to the δι᾿
ἑνὸς ἀνθρ. is put forward with emphasis as the main element of the further de-
scription, wherein moreover διΐλθεν, correlative to the εἰσῆλθε, has likewise em-
phasis. On διέρχεσθαι εἴς twa comp. Plut. Alcib. 2. Compare also ἐπί τινα in
Hz. v. 17 and Ps. Ixxxvii. 17. More frequent in classic authors with the simple
accusative, as in Luke xix. 1. — ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον)" [see Note LIII. p. 222],
on the ground of the fact that, i.e. because, all sinned, namely (and for this the
momentary sense of the aorist is appropriate’) when through the One sin
entered into the world. Because, when Adam sinned, αὐ men sinned in and
with him, the representative of entire humanity (not : ‘‘evemplo Adami,”
Pelagius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), death, which came into the world

vy. 15. It is mere empty arbitrariness in
Thomasius 1.6. p. 316, to say that our ex-
planation is grammatically unjustifiable.
Why so? Stélting (comp. Dietzsch) objects
to it that then ὁ ϑάνατος διῆλϑεν must also
be taken in the momentary sense. But

2

this by no means follows, since ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντ.

1Τὴ 2 Tim. i.10 ϑάνατος is used in the
sense of efernal death, which Christ (by His
work of atonement) has done away; the
opposite of it is ζωή καὶ ἀφϑαρσία, which He
has brought to light by His Gospel. Not
less is Eph. ii. 1 to be explained as meaning
eternal death.
Neverthe-

2 The most complete critical comparison
of the various expositions of these words
may be seen in Dietzsch, p. 50 ff.

8 Hofmann erroneously holds (Schriftbew.
Zc.) that the imperfect must have been used.
What is meant is in fact the same act,
which in Adam’s sin is done by all, not
another contemporaneous act. Comp. 2 Cor.

ne. is a special relative clause.
less even that ὃ ϑάνατ. διῆλϑ. is Not some-
thing gradually developing itself, but a
thing done in and with the sin of the One
man. Zhis One has sinned and has become
liable to death, and thereby ai/ have be-
come mortal, because Adam’s sin was the
sin of ail.

198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

through the sin that had come into it, has been extended to ail in virtue of
this causal connection between the sin that had come into existence through
Adam and death. Ali became mortal through Adam’s fall, because this
having sinned on the part of Adam was a having sinned on the part of all ;
consequently τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, ver. 15. Thus it is
certainly on the ground of Adam that all die (ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν,
1 Cor. xv. 22), because, namely, when Adam sinned, all sinned, all as ἁμαρτωλοὶ
κατεστάθησαν (ver. 19), and consequently the death that came in through his
sin can spare none. But itisin a linguistic point of view erroneous, accord-
ing to the traditional Catholic interpretation after the example of Origen,
the Vulgate, and Augustine (Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Klee ; not Stengel,
Reithmayr, Bisping, and Maier ; but revived by Aberle), to take ἐφ᾽ ¢ as
equivalant to ἐν @, in quo 5011. Adamo, as also Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and
others do ; compare Irenaeus, Haer. v. 16, 3. The thought which this expo-
sition yields (‘‘omnes ille unus homo fuerunt,” Augustine) is essentially
correct, but it was an error to derive it from ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, since it is rather to be
derived from πάντες ἥμαρτον, and hence also it is but arbitrarily explained
by the sensuous notion of all men having been in the loins (Heb. vii. 9, 10)
of Adam (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Augustine). Chrysostom gives in general
the proper sense, though without definitely indicating how he took the ἐφ’
ᾧ : ““τί δέ ἐστιν ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον 3 ἐκείνου πεσόντος καὶ οἱ μὴ φαγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἐύλου γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνον πάντες θνητοί." So also substantially Theophylact,
though explaining, with Photius, ἐφ᾽ © as equivalant to ἐπὶ τῷ ᾿Αδάμ. The
right view is taken by Bengel (‘‘ quia omnes peccarunt. . . . Adamo pee-
cante’) ; Koppe (‘‘ipso actu, quo peccavit Adamus”’), Olshausen, Philippi,
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 126, 369, and Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 590, HI. p. 308 f. ;
comp. also Klépper.' The objection that in this way the essential defini-
ition is arbitrarily supplied (Tholuck, Hofmann, Stélting, Dietzsch, and
others) is incorrect ; for what is maintained is simply that more precise
definition of ἥμαρτον, for which the immediate connection has necessarily
prepared the way, and therefore no person, from an unprejudiced point of
view, can speak of ‘‘an abortive product of perplexity impelling to arbi-
trariness” (Hofmann). Nor is our view at variance with the meaning of
οὕτως (as Ernesti objects), since from the point of view of death having been
occasioned by Adam’s sin (οὕτως) the universality of death finds its explana-
tion in the very fact, that Adam’s sin was the sin of all. Aptly (as against
Dietzsch) Bengel compares 2 Cor. v. 14: εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανε, ἄρα οἱ
πάντες ἀπέθανον (namely, Christo moriente) ; see on that passage. Others,
and indeed most modern expositors (including Reiche, Riickert, Tholuck,
Fritzsche, de Wette, Maier, Baur, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Mehring,
Hofmann, Stélting, Thomasius, Mangold, and others), have interpreted
ἥμαρτον of individual sins, following Theodoret : ob yap διὰ τὴν τοῦ προπάτορος

1 Who, although avoiding the direct ex-
pression of our interpretation, nevertheless
in substance arrives at the same meaning,
p. 505: ‘‘All however sinned, because
Adam’s sin penetrated to them, inasmuch

‘

as God punished the fault of Adam so
thoroughly that his sin became shared by
all his descendants.’’ For Kl6pper properly
explains the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ defining the relation as
imputation of Adam’s sin to all.

ΘΕΆ ΒΕ τ ole. 199
ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἕκαστος δέχεται τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅρον. [See Note LIV.
Ῥ. 224.] Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 263 ; Mircker/l.c. p.19. But the tak-
ing the words thus of the universal having actually sinned as cause of the
universal death (see other variations further on) must be rejected for the sim-
ple reason, that the proposition would not even be true : and because the
view, that the death of individuals is the consequence of their own
actual sins, would be inappropriate to the entire parallel between Adam
and Christ, nay even contradictory to it. For as the sin of Adam brought
death to all (consequently not their own self-committed sin), so did the
obedience of Christ (not their own virtue) bring life to all. Comp. 1 Cor.
xv. 22. This objective relation corresponding to the comparison re-
mains undisturbed in the case of our exposition alone, inasmuch as ἐφ᾽ ¢
πάντ. ἥμαρτ. Shows how the sin of Adam necessarily brought death to ail.
To explain ἥμαρτον again, as is done by many, and still by Picard and
Aberle : they were sinful, by whichis meant original sin (Calvin, Flacius,
Melanchthon in the Hnarr.: ‘‘omnes habent peccatum, scilicet pravita-
tem propagatam et reatum”), or to import even the idea poenam Iluere
(Grotius), is to disregard linguistic usage ; for ἥμαρτον means they have
sinned, and nothing more. This is acknowledged by Julius Miiller (ὁ. d.
Siinde, II. Ὁ. 416 ff. ed. 5), who however professes to find in ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 7. jp.
only an accessory reason for the preceding, and that in the sense : ‘‘ as then”
all would besides have well deserved this severe fate for themselves by their actual
sins. Incorrectly, because ἐφ ᾧ does not mean ‘‘ as then” or ‘‘as then also”
(i.e. ὡς καί) ; because the statement of the reason is by no means made ap-
parent as in any way merely secondary and subjective, as Neander and Mess-
ner have rationalised it, but on the contrary is set down as the single, com-
plete and objective ground ; because its alleged purport would exercise an
alien and disturbing effect on the whole development of doctrine in the pas-
sage ; and because the sense assigned to the simple ἥμαρτον (this severe fate
they would have all moreover well merited) is purely fanciful. Ernesti takes
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ not of the objective ground, but as specifying the grownd of thinking
80, ἴ.6. the subjective ground of cognition : ‘‘ about which there can be no doubt,
in so far as all have in point of fact sinned ;” this he holds to be the logical

1 Namely, in respect to the many millions
of children who have not yet sinned. The
reply made to this, that Paul has had in
view only those capable of sin (Castalio, Wet-
stein, Fritzsche, and others) is least of all
applicable in the very case of this Apostle
and of the present acutely and thoroughly
considered disquisition, and just as little is
an appeal to the disposition to sin (Tholuck)
which children have (Paul says plainly
ἥμαρτον.) This way out of the difficulty
issues in an exegetical self-deception.—He
who seeks to get rid of the question re-
garding children must declare that it is not
here raised, since the passage treats of the
human race as a whole (comp. Ewald, Jahrb.
VI. p. 182, also Mangold, p. 118 f.) This

would suffice, were the question merely of
universal sinfulness; for in such a case
Paul could just as properly have said
πάντες ἥμαρτον here, with self-evident refer-
ence to all capable of sin, as in iii. 23.
But the question here is the connection be-
tween the stn of all and the dying of all, in
which case there emerges no self-evident
limitation, because all, even those still in-
capable of peccatum actuale, must die.
Thus the question as to children still re-
mains, and is only disposed of by not taking
ἥμαρτον in the sense of having individually
sinned ; comp. Dietzsch, p. 57 f. This also
applies against Stdlting, according to whom
Paul wishes to show that sin works death
in the case of all sinners without exception.

200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ground for the οὕτως «.7.2. But, as there is no precedent of usage for this
interpretation of ἐφ᾽ ¢ (Phil. i. 12 is unjustifiably adduced), Ernesti is com-
pelled to unite with ἐφ᾽ ᾧ vv. 13 and 14 in an untenable way. See on ver.
13 f., remark 1, and Philippi, Glaubensl. III. Ὁ. 222 ff. ed. 2. — Respect-
ing ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, which is quite identical with ἐφ᾽ οἷς, we have next to observe as
follows : It is equivalent to ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, and means on the ground of the fact
that, consequently in real sense propterea quod,’ because (dieweil, Luther), of
the causa antegressa (not jinalis), as also Thomas Magister and Favorinus have
explained it as equivalent to διότι. So in the N. T. at 2 Cor. v. 4 and Phil.
iii. 12.2 Rothe (followed by Schmid, bib]. Theol. p. 260) has taken it as :
“‘under the more definite condition, that” (ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὥστε), so that individual
sins are the consequence of the diffusion of death through Adam’s sin over
mankind. But this view is wholly without precedent in the usus loquendi,
for the very frequent use of ἐφ᾽ 6, wnder the condition, that (usually with the
infinitive or future indicative), is both in idea and in practice something
quite different ; see Kiihner, 11. 2, p. 1006. Ewald formerly (Jahrb. II. p.
171), rejecting the second 6 θάνατος, explained : ‘‘ and thus there penetrated
to all men that, whereunto all sinned,” namely death, which, according to Gen.
ii. 17, was imposed as punishment on sin, so that whosoever sinned, sinned
so that he had to die, a fate which he might know beforehand. ‘In this
way the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ would (with Schmid and Glickler, also Umbreit) be taken cf
the causa jinalis* and the subject of διῆλθεν (τοῦτο) would be implied in it.
But, apart from the genuineness of ὁ θάνατος, which must be defended, there
still remains, even with the explanation of ἐφ᾽ 6 as final, so long as ἥμαρτον
is explained of individual actual sins, the question behind as to the truth of

ἐξηρτήσω σαυτοῦ κ. ἐποίησας εἶναι σούς. See
further Josephus, Antt. i. 1, 4: ὃ ὄφις

1 Baur also, II. Ὁ. 202 (comp. his neutest.
Theol. Ὁ». 138), approves the rendering δὲ-

cause, but foists on this because the sense:
“which has as its presupposition.” Thus it
should be understood, he thinks, also in 2
Cor. vy. 4 and Phil. iii. 12; and thus Paul
proves from the universality of death the
universality of sin. See, in opposition to
this logical inversion, Ernesti, p. 212 ff.

2 Comp. Theophilus, ad Aufol. ii. 40, ed.
Wolf: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἴσχυσε ϑανατῶσαι αὐτούς (e-
cause he was unable to put them to death),
Diod. Sic. xix. 98: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ.. . .. τὸ μὲν μεῖζον
καλοῦσι ταῦρον, τὸ δὲ ἔλασσον μόσχον (because
they call the greater a bull, etc.); just so
ἐφ᾽ ots, Plut. @e Pyth. orac. 29. Favorinus
quotes the examples:
εἰργάσω, and ἐφ᾽ ols τὸν νόμον ov τηρεῖς,
κολασϑήση. Thomas Magister cites the ex-
ample from Synesius ep. 73: ἐφ᾽ & Τεννάδιον
ἔγραψεν (propterea quod Gennadium accu-
sasset, comp. Herm. ad Viger. p. 710). An-
other example from Synesius (in Devarius,
ed. Klotz, p. 88) is: ἐφ᾽ οἷς yap SexodvSov εὖ
ἐποίησας (on the ground of this, that, i.e. be-
cause thou hast done well to Secundus)
ἡμᾶς ἐτίμησας, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ols οὕτω γράφων τιμᾷς,

ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν κλοπὴν

συνδιαιτώμενος τῷ. τε ᾿Αδάμῳ καὶ TH γυναικὶ
φϑονερῶς εἶχεν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς (propterea quod) αὐτοὺς
εὐδαιμονήσειν ὠέτω πεπεισμένους τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ
Antt. xvi. 8, 2:
παϑεῖν, ἐφ᾽ ois ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν,
προλαμβάνοντες μόνον.

3 Of a similar nature are rather such pas-
sages as Dem. 518, 26; ἕν yap μηδέν ἐστιν, ἐφ᾽
ᾧ τῶν πεπραγμένων οὐ δίκαιος ὧν ἀπολωλέναι
φανήσεται [upon the ground of which he will
not seem worthy, ete.) ; de cor. 114 (twice) ;
as well as the very current use of ἐπὶ τούτῳ,
propterea (Xen. Mem. i. 2, 61) of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ
τούτῳ, for this very reason (Dem. 578, 26;
Xen. Cyr. ii. 8, 10), ete.; and further, such
expressions as ἐπὶ μιᾷ δή ποτε δίκῃ πληγὰς
ἔλαβον (Xen. Cyr. i. 3, 16), where ἐπί with
the dative specifies the ground (Kiihner, II.
1, p. 436).

4Xen. Cyr. vill. 8, 24: οὐδέ ye Speravy-
φόροις ἔτι χρῶνται, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ Κῦρος αὐτὰ ἐποιήσατο,
111. 8, 36, ὑπομιμνήσκειν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς τε ἐτρεφόμεϑα,
Thue. i. 134, 1, a@/.; and see especially Wisd.
11. 23.

παραγγέλμασι. καὶ τὸ δικαίως

ry a
αυτοι

ΘΈΓΑΙΡ Veyube. 201
the proposition, since not all, who die, have actually sinned ; and indeed
the view of the death of all having been caused by the actual sins of all is
incompatible with what follows.’ See also Ernesti, p. 192 ff. ; comp. his
Eithik. d. Ap. P. p. 16 1. Moreover the telic form of expression itself would
have to be taken only in an improper sense, instead of that of the necessary,
but on the part of the subjects not intended, result, somewhat after the idea
of fate, asin Herod. 1. 68 : ἐπὶ κακῷ ἀνθρώπου σίδηρος ἀνεύρηται. Subsequently
(in his Sendschr. d. Ap. P.) Ewald, retaining the second ὁ θάνατος, has as-
sumed for ἐφ᾽ ᾧ the signification, so far as (so also Tholuck and van Hengel) ;
holding that by the limiting phrase ‘‘ so far as they all sinned,” death is thus
set forth the more definitely as the result of sin, so that ἐφ᾽ 6 corresponds to
the previous οὕτως. But even granting the not proved limiting signification
of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (which ἐφ᾽ ὅσον elswhere has, xi. 13), there still remain with this
interpretation also the insurmountable difficulties as to the sense, which
present themselves against the reference of ἥμαρτον to the individual sins.
Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. I. p. 529 f.) refers ἐφ᾽ ᾧ to ὁ θάνατος, so
that it is equivalent to οὗ παρόντος : amidst the presence of death ; making
the emphasis to lie on the preposition, and the sense to be: ‘‘ death was
present at the sinning of all those to whom it has penetrated ; and it has not been
invariably brought about and introduced only through their sinning, nor always
only for each individual uho sinned.” Thus ἐπί might be justified, not indeed
in a temporal sense (which it has among poets and later prose writers only
in proper statements of time, as in Homer, 71. viii. 529, ἐπὶ yuri), but per-
haps in the sense of the prevailing cireumstance, like the German ‘‘ bei” [with,
amidst? (see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 484). But apart from the special tenor of the
thought, which we are expected to extract from the bare ἐφ᾽ ῴ, and which
Paul might so easily have conveyed more precisely (possibly by ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἤδη
παρόντι OY ov ἤδη παρόντος), this artificial exposition has decidedly against it
the fact that the words ἐφ᾽ © πάντες ἥμαρτον must necessarily contain the ar-
gumentative modal information concerning the preceding proposition κ. οὕτως
εἰς πάντας ἀνῃρώπους ὁ θάν. διῆλθεν, Which they in fact contain only when our

view is taken.°

1 Along with which it may be observed
that there is the less warrant for mentally
supplying, in the contrasted propositions
on the side of salvation, a condition corre-
sponding to the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ π. ἥμαρτ. (Mangold:
ἐὰν πάντες πιστεύσωσιν, Which is implicitly
involved in λαμβάνοντες, ver. 17), the more
essential this antitypical element would be.

2 So also Dietzsch has taken it, in sub-
stantial harmony with Hofmann, less arti-
ficially, but not more tenably: amidst the
presence of death. He thinks that the Apos-
tle desires to emphasize the view that
death, originating from the One, is and pre-
vails in the world, quite apart from the
sinning of individuals ; that independently
of this, and prior to it, the universal do-
minion of death springing from Adam is
already in existence. But with what

They must solve the enigma which is involved in the mo-

strange obscurity would Paul in that case
have expressed this simple and clear idea !
How unwarranted it is to attach to his
positive expression the negative significa-
tion (apart from, independently of)! With
just as little warrant we should have to
attach to the πάντες, since inno case could
it include the children who have not yet
sinned, a limitation of meaning, which yet
it is utterly incapable of bearing after the
cis πάντας ἀνϑρώπους just said. The exposi-
tion of Dietzsch, no less than that of Hof-
mann, is a laboriously far-fetched and
mistaken evasion of the proposition clearly
laid down by Paul : ‘‘ because they all sinned,”
namely, when through one man sin came
into the world and death through sin.

3 This applies equally against the similar
exposition of Thomasius (Chr. Pers. κι.

202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

mentous οὕτως of that clause ; and this enigma is solved only by the state-
ment of the reason : because all sinned, so that the θανάσιμος ἁμαρτία of Adam
was the sin ef all, Against Hofmann, compare Philippi’s Glaubensl. III. p.
221 f. ed. 2.

Remark 1, The Rabbinical writers also derived universal mortality from the
fall of Adam, who represented the entire race in such a way that, when Adam
sinned, all sinned. See the passages in Ammon, Opusc. nov. p. 72 ff. Even
perfectly righteous persons are ‘‘comprehensi sub pcena mortis’’ (R. Bechai in
Cadhackemach ἢ. 5, 4). It may reasonably be assumed therefore that the doc-
trine of the Apostle had, in the first instance, its historical roots in his Jew-
ish (comp. Ecclus. xxv. 23 ; Wisd. ii. 23 f.; xiv. 14) and especially his Rabbin-
ical training, and was held by him even prior to his conversion ; and that in
his Christian enlightenment he saw no reason for abandoning the proposition,
which on the contrary he adopted into the system of his Christian views, and
justified by continuing to assert for it in the development of the divine plan
of redemption the place which is here assigned to it, as even Christ Himself
traces death back to the fall (John viii. 44). Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22 : ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ
πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, on Which our passage affords the authentic commentary.
We may add that, when Maimonides is combating (More Nevoch. iii. 24) the
illusion that God arbitrarily decrees punishments, there has been wrongly
found in the dogmatic proposition adduced by him, “‘ non est mors sine peccato,
neque castigatio sine iniquitate,” the reverse of the above doctrine (see espe-
cially Fritzsche, p. 294). The latter is on the contrary presupposed by it.

Remark 2. That Adam was created immortal, our passage does not affirm,
and 1 Cor. xv. 47 contains the opposite. But not as if Paul had conceived
the first man as by his nature sinful, and had represented to himself sin as a
necessary natural quality of the σάρξ (so anew Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. II. p.
470), but thus : if Adam had not sinned in consequence of his self-determina-
tion of antagonism to God, he would have become immortal through eating of
the tree of life in Paradise (Gen. 111. 22), As he has sinned, however, the
consequence thereof necessarily was death, not only for himself, seeing that
he had to leave Paradise, but for all his posterity likewise.! From this conse-
quence, which the sin of Adam had for ail, it results, in virtue of the neces-
sary causal connection primevally ordained by God between sin and death, by
reasoning back ab effectu ad causam, that the fall of Adam was the collective
fall of the entire race, in so far as in fact all forfeited Paradise and therewith
incurred death. — If ἐφ᾽ 6 πάντες ἥμαρτον be explained in the sense of individual
actual sins, and at the same time the untenableness of the explanation of Hof-
mann and Dietzsch be recognized, it becomes impossible by any expedients,
such as that of Rothe, I. p. 314, ed. Schenkel, to harmonize the view in our
passage with that expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 47; but, if it be referred to the fall
of Adam, every semblance of contradiction vanishes.

Ver. 19 1. Demonstration, that the death of all has its ground in the sin of

Werk. I. p. 316 f.), amidst the presence of impossibility, which Finckh also presents.
which relation (ᾧ as neuter). As if pre- 1Comp. Jul. Miiller, dogmat. Abhandl.
viously a “‘ relation’? had been expressed, 1870, p. 89 f. Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. Ὁ.
and not a concrete historical fact! Weisse 994.

took ἐφ᾽ ᾧ even as although, —a linguistic

a

CHAP, V., 13: 203

Adam and the causal connection of that sin with death. This argument,
conducted with great conciseness, sets owt from the undoubted historical
certainty (it is already sufficiently attested in Gen. iv.—vi.) that during the
entire period prior to the law (ἄχρι νόμου = ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ μέχρι Μωΐσέως, ver. 14)
there was sin in humanity ; then further argues that the death of individuals,
which yet has affected those who also have not like Adam sinned against a
positive command, cannot be derived from that sin prior to the law, because
in the non-existence of law there is no imputation ; and allows it to be thence
inferred that consequently the death of all has been caused (ἐφ᾽ ὦ πάντες ἡμαρτον)
by the sin of Adam (not by their individual sins). Paul however leaves
this inference to the reader himself ; he does not expressly declare it, but
instead of doing so he says, returning to the comparison begun in ver. 12 :
ὃς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, for in that death-working operation of Adam’s
sin for all lay, in fact, the very ground of the typical relation to Christ.
Chrysostom aptly says : εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος τὴν ῥίζαν ἔσχε, νόμου δὲ οὐκ
ὄντος ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται, πῶς ὁ θάνατος ἐκράτει ; ὅθεν δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὴ ἡ
ἁμαρτία ἡ τῆς τοῦ νόμου παραβάσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνη τῆς τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ παρακοῆς, αὕτη ἣν ἡ
πάντα λυμαινομένη. Καὶ τίς ἡ τούτου ἀπόδειξις 3 τὸ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου πάντας ἀποθ-
νήσκειν" ἐβασίλευσε γὰρ κιτ.2. Compare Oecumenius. —aypz νόμου] [See Note
LY. p. 224] ἐ.6. in the period previous to the giving of the law, comp. ver.
14; consequently not during the period of the law, ἕως ὁ νόμος ἐκράτει," Theodo-
ret ; comp. Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. — ἐλλογεῖται]
preserved nowhere else except in Boeckh, Jnscript. I. p. 850 A, 35, and Phi-
lem. 18 (text ree.), but undoubtedly meaning : is put to account (consequent-
ly equivalent to λογίζεται, iv. 4), namely, here, according to the context, Sor
punishment, and that on the part of God ; for inthe whole connection the sub-
Ject spoken of is the divine dealings in consequence of the fall. Hence we are
neither to understand ab judice (Fritzsche), nor ; by the person sinning ; so Au-
gustine, Ambrosiaster, Luther, (‘then one does not regard the sin ”) Melanch-
thon (*‘non accusatur in nobis ipsis,”) Calvin, Beza, and others, including
Usteri, Riickert, J. Miiller, Lipsius, Mangold, and Stélting (‘there
the sinner recognizes not his sin as guilt”), whereby a thought quite
irrelevant to the argument is introduced. —j) ὄντος νόμου] without the
evistence of the law ; νόμος, as previously ἄχρι νόμου, meaning the Mosaic law,
and not any law generally (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and many others, in-
cluding Hofmann), as ἁμαρτία already points to the divine law. Comp. iv.
15. The proposition itself : ‘‘ Sin is not imputed, if the law is absent,” is set
down as something universally conceded, as an aviom ; therefore with repeti-
tion of the subject (in opposition to Hofmann, who on account of this
repetition separates ἁμαρτία dé «.7.2. from the first half of the verse and
attaches it to what follows), and with the verb in the present. The propo-
sition itself, inserted as an intervening link in the argument with the
metabatic δέ, without requiring a preceding μέν, which Hofmann is wrong

1 As is well known, Peyrerius (Praead- law given to Adam in Paradise ; and found
amitae s. exercitat. exeg. in Rom. vy. 12-14, thus a proof for his Preadamites.
Amst. 1655) referred the νόμου here to the

-

204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS.

in missing (see Dietzsch and Kihner, II. 2, p. 814), has its truth as well as
its more precise application in the fact, that in the absence of law the
action, which in and by itself is unlawful, is no transgression of the law
(iv. 15), and cannot therefore be brought into account as such. That Paul
regarded the matter in this light, and had not, as Hofmann thinks, sinning
generally, ‘‘as it was one and the same thing in the case of all,” in view
apart from the sins of individuals, is plain also from καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτ.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσ. "Addu, in ver. 14. His thought is : If the death.
of men after Adam had been caused by their own sin, then in the case of
all those who have died during the period from Adam till the law, the sin
which they have committed must have been already reckoned to them as
transgression of the law, just as Adam’s sin was the transgression of the
positive divine command, and as such brought upon him death ; but this
is inconceivable, because the law was not in existence. In this Paul leaves
out of consideration the Noachian commands (Gen. ix.), as well as other
declarations of God as to His will given before the law, and likewise
individual punitive judgments, such as in the case of Sodom, just because
he has only the strict idea of real and formal legislation before his mind,
and this suggests to him simply the great epochs of the Paradisaic and
Sinaitic legislations. A view, which does not subvert the truth of his
demonstration, because mankind in general were without law from Adam
until Moses, the natural law, because not given positively, remaining out of
the account ; it makes the act at variance with it appear as sin (ἁμαρτία),
but not as παράβασις νόμου, which as such ἐλλογεῖται. ---- Ver. 14. ἀλλ᾽] at, yet,
although sin is not put to account in the absence of the law. It intro-
duces an apparently contradictory phenomenon, confronting the ἁμαρτία οὐκ
ἐλλογεῖται κιτ.}. ; One, however, which just proves that men have died, not
through their own special sin, but through the sin of Adam, which was put
to their account. — ἐβασίλευσεν] prefixed with emphasis : death has not per-
chance been powerless, no, it has reigned, 1.6. has exercised its power
which deprives of life (comp. vv. 17-21). Hofmann (comp. also Holsten,
Aberle, and Dietzsch) finds in the emphatic ἐβασ. the absolute and abiding
dominion, which death has exercised independently of the imputation of
sins (ἀλλὰ being taken as the simple but), ‘‘ just as a king, one by virtue of
his personal position once and for all entitled to do so, exercises dominion
over those who, in virtue of their belonging to his domain, are from the
outset subject to him.” But no reader could educe this qualitative definite
sense of the βασιλεύειν, with the highly essential characteristic elements
ascribed to it, from the mere verb itself ; nor could it be gathered from the
position of the word at the head of the sentence ; on the contrary, it must
unquestionably have been expressed (by érupdvvevoev possibly, or τυραννικῶς
ἐβασίλευσεν) seeing that the subsequent καί (even over those, etc.) does not
indicate a mode of the power of the (personified) death, but only appends
the fact of its dominion being without exception. — μέχρι Moic. | equivalent
to ἄχρι νόμου in ver. 13. <A distinction of sense between μέχρι and ἄχρι is
(contrary to the opinion of Tittmann, Synon. p. 33f.) purely fanciful. See
Fritzsche, p. 3808 ff. and van Hengel in loc.

Ν 3 Ν Ν Ἂς e Ζ
καὶ ETL τοὺς μὴ αἀμαρτσανταςΓ

CHAP. Vien ae 205
x.T.4. | even over those * who have not sinned like Adam, that is, have not like
him transgressed a positive divine command. [See Note LVI. p. 224.] Even
these it did not spare. It is erroneous with Chrysostom (but not Theodoret
and Theophylact) to connect ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι x.7.A. With ἐβασίλ."5 Erroneous
for this reason, that Paul, apart from the little children or those otherwise
incapable of having sin imputed, whom however he must have indicated
more precisely, could not conceive at all (iii. 23) of persons who had not
sinned (μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντες Without any modal addition more precisely defining
it), and a limitation mentally supplied (sine lege peccarunt, Bengel) is purely
fanciful. The καί, even, refers to the fact that in the period extending from
Adam till Moses, excluding the latter, positively given divine commands
were certainly transgressed by individuals to whom they were given, but it
was not these merely who died (as must have been the case, had death been
brought on by their own particular sins); it was also those,’ who ete. Their
sin was not ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώμ. τῆς παραβ. Addu (ἐπί used of the form, in which
anything occurs, see Bernhardy, p. 250); they did not sin in such a way,
that their action was of like shape with the transgression of Adam, ‘‘ quia non
habebant ut 1116 vevelatam certo oraculo Dei voluntatem,” Calvin. For other
definitions of the sense see Fritzsche, p. 316, and Reiche, Commentar. crit.
I. p. 45 ff. Reiche himself explains it of those who have transgressed no
command expressly threatening death. So also Tholuck. But this peculiar
limitation is not suggested by the context, in which, on the contrary, it is
merely the previous μὴ ὄντος νόμου which supplies a standard for determining
the sense of the similarity. According to Hofmann καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς down to
‘Addu is meant to be one and the same with the previous ἀπὸ Αδὰμ μέχρι
Moicéac, inasmuch as a transgression similar to that of Adam could only
then have occurred, ‘‘zhen God placed a people in the same position in which
Adam found himself, when he received a divine command on the observance or
transgression of which his life or death depended.” This misconception, spring-
ing from the erroneous interpretation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, is already ex-
cluded by καί," as well as, pursuant to the tenor of thought, by the fact
that in the pre-legal period in question all those, who transgressed a com-
mand divinely given to them by way of revelation, sinned like Adam.
Their sin had thereby the same moral form as the act of Adam; but not only
had they to die, but also (κα those who had not been in that condition of
sinning. Death reigned over the latter also.—The genitive with ὁμοιώμ. is
not that of the subject (Hofmann), but of the object, as in i. 23, vi. 5, viii. 3 ;
the sins meant are not so conceived of, that the παράβασις of Adam is homo-

1 βασιλεύειν with ériis a Hebraism Sy. Hengel). Both classes are included in the

Compare Luke i. 33, xix. 14; 1 Sam. viii. 9,
11; 1 Macc. i. 16.

2 So Finckh again does, following Castalio
and Bengel: “quia illorum eadem atque
Adami transgredientis ratio fuit.... ie.
propter reatum ab Adamo contractum.”’

3 Consequently the two classes, formed by
Paul, are not to be so distinguished that
the one shall embrace men before Noah,
and the other the Noachian race (van

whole period from Adam till Moses.

4 Which necessarily assumes a class of
sinners in the pre-legal period, whose sin
was homogeneous with that of Adam.
This also, in opposition to Mangold, p. 121,
and Dietzsch, p. 98; according to whose
and Hofmann’s definition of the sense,
Paul ought either to have omitted the καί
altogether, or to have inserted it before
ἀπὸ Adam.

΄

206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

geneously repeated in them, but so that they are, as to their specific nature,
of similar fashion with it, and consequently belong to the same ethical cate-
gory. They have morally just the same character. As to ὁμοίωμα see on i.
23. - ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος] who—to educe now from vv. 13, 14 the result
introduced in ver. 12, and so to return to the comparison there begun—is
type of the future (Adam). 'Theophylact correctly paraphrases: ὡς yap
ὁ παλαιὸς ᾿Αδὰμ πάντας ὑποδίκους ἐποίησε τῷ οἰκείῳ πταίσματι (by bringing upon
them death), καίτοι μὴ πταίσαντας, οὕτως ὁ Χριστὸς ἐδικαίωσε πάντας, καίτοι μὴ
δικαιώσεως ἄξια ποιήσαντας. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 45. Koppe, following
Bengel, takes μέλλ. as neuter (of that, which should one day take place), and ὅς
for 6. Thisagreement of the relative with the following substantive would
perhaps be grammatically tenable ;’ but seeing that ᾿Αδάμ immediately pre-
cedes it, and that the idea of Christ being ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ is a Pauline idea
(1 Cor. 1.4.), it is quite unjustifiable to depart from the reference of the ὅς to
Adam ; and equally so to deny to the μέλλων its supplement from the imme-
diately preceding ’Addy, and to take it as ‘‘ the man of the future” (Hofmann),
which would nevertheless yield in substance the same meaning. — τύπος]
type, so that the μέλλων is the anti-type (1 Pet. 11. 21). The type is always
something historical (a person, thing, saying), which is destined, in ac-
cordance with the divine plan, to prefigure something corresponding to it in
the future,—in the connected scheme of sacred historical teleology, which is
to be discerned from the standpoint of the antitype. Typical historical
parallels between Adam and the Messiah (so that the latter is even ex-
pressly termed the last Adam) are found also in Rabbinical authors ,? and
are based in them on the doctrine of the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων.) Paul based
this typology of his on the atoning work of Christ and its results, as the
whole discussion shows ; hence in his present view Christ as the μέλλων
᾿Αδάμ is not still to come, but is already historical.* For this reason how-
ever ὁ μέλλων may not, with Fritzsche and de Wette, be referred to the last
coming of Christ; but must be dated from the time of Adam, in so far,
namely, as in looking back to the historical appearance of Adam, Christ, as
its antitype, és the future Adam (comp. ὁ ἐρχόμενος).

Remark 1. Those who refer ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον to the proper sins of indi-
viduals, or even to the principle of the duaptia dwelling in them, ought not to
find, as Baumgarten-Crusius, Umbreit, and Baur still do, the proof for the
πάντες ἥμαρτον in ver. 13 f. for how in the connection of the passage could any
proof for the universality of sin be still required? Certainly just as little as in
particular for the fact, that, with death already existing in the world (Dietzsch), all
individuals have sinned. Consistently with that reference of the ἐφ᾽ 6 π. ἥμαρτον
there must rather have been read from ver. 13 f. the proof for this, that the

1 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 708; Heind. ad 3 Compare the passages in Eisenmenger,

Phaedr. p. 279.

2 E.g. Neve Schalom f. 160, 2: ‘‘Quemad-
modum, homo primus fuit primus in pec-
cato, sic Messias erit ultimus ad auferen-
dum peccatum penitus ;” Weve Schalom 9, 9:
Adamus postremus est Messias.”’

entdeckt. Judenth. 11. Ὁ. 819, 823 ff.

4 Comp. Chrysostom; also Theodore of
Mopsuestia: ὥσπερ δι᾽ ἐκείνου (Adam) τῶν
χειρόνων ἡ πάροδοσ ἐγένετο, οὕτω διὰ τούτου τῆς
τῶν κρειττόνων ἀπολαύσεως τὴν ἀφορμὴν
ἐδεξάμεϑα,

CHAP. V., 13. 207

death of all results from the proper sins of all. But how variously has this
demonstration been evolved! Either: although sin has not until Moses been impu-
table according to positive law, yet each one has brought death upon himself by his sin
(ver. 14), which proves the relative imputation thereof. So de Wette. Or: although
sin, which even from Adam till Moses was not lacking, be not imputed by a human
judge in the absence of positive law, yet the reign of death (ver. 14) shows that God
has imputed the pre-Mosaic sins. So Fritzsche. Or: in order to show ‘in Adamo
causam quaerendam esse, cur hominwm peccata mors secuta sit,” Paul declares that
death has reigned over all from Adam till Moses, whether they sinned like Adam,
or differently. So van Hengel ; comp, also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 264. Or: not
even in the period from Adam till Moses was sin absent ; but the clear proof to the
contrary is the dominion of death in this period. So Baur, and with a substantially
similar view of the mode of inference ab effectu ad causam,! Rothe also. But
however it may be turned, the probative element has first of all to be read into
the passage ; and even then the alleged proof (ver. 14) would only be a reason-
ing backwards from the historical phenonenon in ver. 14 to the cause asserted by -
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ π. ἥμαρτ., and consequently a mere clumsy argument in a circle, which
again assumes the assertion to be proved—id quod erat demonstrandum—in
the phenomenon brought forward in ver. 14; and moreover utterly breaks
down through the proposition that sin is not imputed in the absence of law.
Ewald, in his former view (Jahrb. IT.), rightly deduces from ver. 14: conse-
quently it only appears the more certain, that death propagated itself to them only by
means of Adam's,” but attributes to this inference, consistently with his view
of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ π. hu., the sense : ‘that they all sinned unto death just in the same way as,
and because, Adam had sinned unto it.’’? In his latter view (Sendschr. ἃ. Ap. P.)
he supposes that in connection with ἐφ᾽ 6 πάντες ἥμαρτον the possible doubt
may have arisen, whether it was so certain that death had come upon those oldest
men from Adam iill Moses in consequence of their sins ? which doubt Paul prop-
erly answers in ver, 13 f., thereby all the more corroborating the truth. But
the emergence of a doubt is indicated by nothing in the text; and that doubt
indeed would have been dissipated by the very fact that those men were dead,
which does not prove however that they died on account of their sins. Thus
also the matter would amount to a reasoning inacircle. According to Tho-
luck the argument is: that death has passed upon all through the disposition to
death (?) introduced in Adam, and not through their own sins, is plain from the fact,
that pre-Mosaiec sin, through not positively threatened with death, as in the case of
Adam and in the law, was nevertheless placed under its dominion.’’ Only thus, he
holds, is the logical relation between the clauses apparent. In general this is
right ; but by this very circumstance Tholuck just attests the correctness of
our explanation of ἥμαρτον, namely, that it is not meant of individual sin. The
caution which he inserts against this inference, namely, that Paul regards the
actual sins ‘‘ only as the relatively free manifestations of the hereditary sinful
substance,” is of no avail, seeing that they remain always acts of individual
freedom, even though the latter be only relative, while the argument in our
passage is such that the individual’s own sins, as cause of death, are eacluded.
Ernesti joins ἁμαρτία δὲ «.7.A. with ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κιτ.λ.: “since indeed all have sinned,
but sin is not placed to account,’’ etc. The dy... . κόσμῳ standing in
the way, he enclosesin a parenthesis. But why this parenthesis? The πάντες

1 According to the correlation of the ideas sin and death, comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 188,

΄

208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

ἥμαρτον, in the sense of iii, 23, needed no proof; and it could not occur to
any one to date sin only from the epoch of the law. The dy... . κόσμῳ
acquires its pertinent significance when, as an essential element in the syllo-
gistic deduction, it is closely united with the axiom ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογ. K.7.A.
attached to it, and is not set aside in a parenthesis as if it might equally well
have been omitted. According to Holsten the argument turns on the fact that
objective sin entered the world through Adam, and death along with it ; thus
death has passed upon all because all were sinners (in the objective sense)—a
diffusion by means of one over the whole, which is illustrated by the thought
that, while sin was in the world until the law, this sin could not, in the ab-
sence of law, be imputed as subjective guilt ; but death became ruler, in accord-
ance with the objective divine law of the universe, with a tyrannical power
not conditioned by the subjects of its rule, even over those who were indeed
(objectively) sinners, but not (subjectively) transgressors like Adam. MHolsten
has certainly in this way avoided the error of making universal death condi-
tioned by the subjective sin of the individuals ; but he has done so by means
of a distinction between objective and subjective sins, which is so far from
being suggested by the text, that it was just through Adam that the subjective
sin, joined with the consciousness of guilt, entered the world, and therefore the
divine action, in decreeing death upon sin, could not be conceived as indiffer-
ent to the subjectivity. Hofmann—who sees in Gdyps .. . . κόσμῳ a [very un-
necessary] ground assigned for the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 7. ἥμαρτον, upon which there follows
in ἁμαρτία δὲ κ.τ.λ. a declaration regarding death in the pre-legal period, ac-
cording to which this could not have been caused by the sinning of that pe-
riod, seeing that on the contrary the latter took place when death was already
present—confuses the entire exposition of the passage, and by his artificial
rendering of ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον makes the understanding of it impossible. In
general the entire history of the interpretation of our passage shows that when
once the old ecclesiastical explanation of ἐφ᾽ 6 (this however taken as propterea
quod) πάντες ἥμαρτον is regarded as the Charybdis to be shunned at all hazards,
the falling into the Scylia becomes unavoidable. Even Klépper, in attributing
to πάντες ἥμαρτον the underlying thought that Adam’s sin penetrated to all,
and Dietzsch, by his simplifying and modification of Hofmann’s exposition,
have not escaped this danger,

Remark 2. Since Paul shows from the absence of imputation (ἐλλογεῖται) in
the absence of law, that the death of men after Adam cannot have been occa-
sioned by their own individual sins, but only by Adam’s, in which all were
partakers in virtue of their connection with him as their progenitor, he must
have conceived that Adam’s sin brought death not merely to himself but also
at the same time to all by way of imputation ; and therefore the imputatio peccati
Adamiticit in reference to the death, to which all are subjected, certainly results
from our passage as a Pauline doctrine. But as to original sin (not however as
to its condemnableness in itself), the testimony of our passage is only indirect,
in so far, namely, as the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, according to its proper explana-
tion and confirmation in ver. 13 f., necessarily presupposes in respect to
Adam’s posterity the habitual want of justitia originalis and the possession of
concupiscence.

Remark 3. The view of Julius Miiller as to an original estate and original
fall of man in an extra-temporal sphere (comp. the monstrous opinion of

CHAP. V., 15. 209
Benecke, p. 109 ff., andin the Stud. ει. Krit. 1832, p. 616 ff.) cannot be reconciled
with our passage and its reference to Gen. iii.! See Ernesti, p. 247 ff., and
among dogmatic theologians, especially Philippi, III. p. 92 ff.; and (against
Schelling and Steffens) Martensen, § 93, p. 202 ff. ed. 2.

Ver. 15. But not as is the trespass, so also is the gift of grace. (See Note
LVIL. p. 225.) Although Adam and Christ as the heads of the old and new
humanity are typical parallels, how different nevertheless are the two facts,
by which the former and the latter stand to one another in the relation of
type and antitype (on the one side the παράπτωμα, on the other the χάρισμα)
—different, namely (εἰ γὰρ κ.τ.2.}, by the opposite effects? issuing from those
two iacts, on which that typical character is based. The question is not as_
to the different measure of efficacious power, for this extends alike in both
cases from one to all ; but as to the different specific kind of effect ; there
death, here the rich grace of God—the latter the more undoubted and cer-
tain (πολλῷ μᾶλλον), as coming after that deadly effect, which the παράπτωμα
had. ‘‘ For if (εἰ purely hypothetical) through the trespass of one the many
died, much more has the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man Jesus
Christ become abundant to the many.” On τὸ παράπτωμα comp. Wisd. x. 1.
The contrast is τὸ χάρισμα, the work of grace, i.e, the atoning and justifying
act of the divine grace in Christ,* comp. ver. 17 ff. — οἱ πολλοί] the many,
namely, according to ver. 12 (comp. ver. 18), the collective posterity of
Adam. It is in substance certainly identical with πάντες, to which Mehring
reverts ; but the contrast to the εἷς becomes more palpable and stronger by
the designation of the collective mass as οἱ πολλοί. Grotius erroneously
says: ‘‘fere omnes, excepto Enocho,” which is against vv. 12,18. Sucha
unique, miraculous exception is not taken into consideration at all in this
mode of looking at humanity as such on a great scale. Erroneous also is
the view of Dietzsch, following Beck, that oi πολλοί and then τοὺς πολλούς
divide mankind into two classes, of which the one continues in Adamite cor-
ruption (?) while the other is in Christ raised above sin and death. This
theory breaks down even on the historical aorist ἀπέθανον and its, accord-
ing to ver. 12, necessary reference to the physical death which was given
with Adam’s death-bringing fall for all, so that they collectively (including
also the subsequent believers) became liable to death through this παράπ-
τωμα. See on ver. 12. It is moreover clear from our passage that for the
explanation of the death of men Paul did not regard their individual sin as

1 Nor with the N. T. generally, which
teaches an extra-temporal mode of exist-
ence only in the case of Christ. The extra-
temporal condition and fall supposed by
Miiller are not only outside of Scripture, but
at variance with it.

3 This contrast forbids the taking ἀλλ᾽

ouK... . χάρισμα interrogatively (Mehring
and earlier expositors), and so getting rid
of the negation.

3 The unhappy and happy consequences
respectively of the παράπτωμα and the

χάρισμα are not included in these concep-.
tions themselves (in opposition to Dietzsch).

Nor is παράπτωμα to be so distinguished.
from παράβασις, that the former connotes the

unhappy consequences (Grotius, Dietzsch).

On the contrary, the expressions are popu-

lar synonyms, only according to different

Jigures, like fall (not falling away) and tres-

pass. Comp. on παράπτ. Ez. xiv. 13, xv. 8,

XViii. 24, 26, iii. 20; Rom. iv. 25, xi. 11; 2Cor.

γ. 19; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. ii. 1 e¢ αἱ.

210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.
the causa efficiens, or even as merely medians ; and it is a meaning gratui-
tously introduced, when it is explained : ‘‘ the many sinned and found death,
like the one Adam,” (Ewald, Jahrb. II., van Hengel and others). — πολλῷ
μᾶλλον] as in ver. 9, of the logical plus, i.e. of the degree of the evidence as
enhanced through the contents of the protasis, multo potius. ‘If Adam’s
fall has had so bad an universal consequence, much less can it be doubted
that,” etc. For God far rather allows His goodness to prevail than His se-
verity ; this is the presupposition on which the conclusion rests. Chrysos-
tom has correctly interpreted 7. μᾶλλ. in the logical sense (πολλῷ yap τοῦτο
εὐλογώτερον), aS does also Theodoret, and recently Fritzsche, Philippi, Tho-
luck (who however takes in the quantitative plus as well), van Hengel, Man-
gold, and Klépper. The quantitative view (Theophylact : οὐ τοσοῦτον μόνον,
‘dno, ὠφέλησεν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὅσον ἔβλαψεν ὁ ᾿Αδάμ ; also Erasmus, Calvin, Beza,
Calovius and others ; and in modern times Riickert, Reiche, K6llner, Rothe,
Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Hofmann, and Dietzsch) is opposed
to the analogy of vv. 17, 18 ; and has also against it the consideration, that
the measure of punishment of the παράπτωμα (viz. the death of all) was already
quantitatively the greatest possible, was absolute, and therefore the meas-
ure of the grace, while just as absolute (εἰς τοὺς πολλούς), is not greater still
than that measure of punishment, but only stands out against the dark
background of the latter all the more evidently in its rich fulness.’ — ἡ χάρις
τ. Θεοῦ x. ἡ δωρεά] the former, the grace of God, richly turned towards the
many, is the principle of the latter (ἡ δωρεά = τό χάρισμα in ver. 15, the gift of
justification). The δωρεά is to be understood κατ’ ἐξοχήν, without supplying τοῦ
Θεοῦ ; but the discourse keeps apart with solemn emphasis what is cause and
what is effect. —év χάριτι... Χριστοῦ is not with many expositors (in-
cluding Rothe, Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Hofmann,
and Dietzsch) to be joined with ἡ δωρεά (the gift, which is procured through
the grace of Christ), but with Fritzsche, Riickert, Ewald, van Hengel, and
others, to be connected with érepiocevoe (has become abundant through the grace
of Christ)—a construction which is decisively supported, not indeed by the
absence of the article, since ἡ δωρεά ἐν χάριτι might be conjoined so as to
form one idea, but by the reason, that only with this connection {πὸ τῷ...
παραπτώματι in the protasis has its necessary, strictly correspondent, correla-
tive in the apodosis. The divine grace and the gift. have abounded to the
many through the grace of Christ, just as the many died through the fall

1 The way would have been logically pre- means tenable. For even in the case of

‘pared for the quantitative plus by the hypo-
thetical protasis only in the event of that
which was predicated being in the two
clauses of a similar (not opposite) kind ; in
the event therefore of its having been possi-
ble to affirm a salutariness of the παράπτωμα
in the protasis. Comp. xi. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 9,
Ii; Heb; ix. 13'f.; xii. 9) 25. The main ob-
jection which Dietzsch (following Rothe)
raises against the interpretation of the
logical plus, on the ground that we have here
two historical realities before us, is by no

two facts which have taken place, the one
may be corroborated and inferred from
the other, namely, as respects its certainty
and necessity. If the one has taken place, it
as by so much the more evident that the other
also has taken place. The historical reality ἡ
of the one leaves all the less room for
doubt as to that of the other. The second
does not in this case require to be some-
thing still future, especially if it be an oc-
currence, which does not fall within the
range of sensuous perception.

CHAP. Vi, 16. 211

of Adam. The χάρις Inoot Χριστοῦ is—as the genitive-relation naturally. sug-
gests of itself, and as is rendered obviously certain by the analogy of ἡ χάρις
τ. Ocov—the grace of Jesus Christ, in virtue of which He found Himself
moved to accomplish the ἱλαστήριον, in accordance with the Father’s decree,
and thereby to procure for men the divine grace and the δωρεά. It is not
therefore the favour in which Christ stood with God (Luther, 1545) ; nor the
grace of God received in the fellowship of Christ (van Hengel) ; nor is it the
steadily continued, earthly and heavenly, redeeming efficacy of Christ's grace ἢ
(Rothe, Dietzsch). Comp. Acts xv. 11; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Gal. i. 6 ; Tit. iii.
6 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8, xiii. 13. The designation of Christ : τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἴ.
X., is occasioned by the contrast with the one man Adam. Comp. 1 Cor.
xv. 21; 1 Tim. ii. 5. To describe the divine glory of this One man (Col.
i. 19) did not fall within the Apostle’s present purpose ; but it was known

to the reader, and is presupposed in His χάρις (John i. 64). — τῇ τοῦ] ““ arti-
culi nervosissimi,” Bengel. — εἰς τοὺς πολλούς] belongs to ἐπερίσσ. The πολ-

dot are likewise here, just as previously, all mankind (comp. πάντας ἀνθρώπους,
ver. 18). To this multitude has the grace of God, etc., been plentifully im-
parted (εἰς τ. π. ἐπερίσσευσε, comp. 2 Cor. i. 5), namely, from the objective
point of view, in so far as Christ’s act of redemption has acquired for all the
divine grace and gift, although the subjective reception of it is conditioned
by faith. See on ver. 18. The expression ἐπερίσσευσε (he does not say
merely ἐγένετο, or some such word) is the echo of his own blessed experi-
ence,

Ver. 16. Continuation of the difference between the gift of grace and the
consequence of the fall, and that with reference to the causal origination on
either side in a numerical aspect.’ — And not as through one, who has sinned,
so is the gift, i.e. it is not so in its case—the state of the case there is the very
reverse—as if it were occasioned δὲ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσ. (like death through Adam).
The dv ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσ. indicates the unity of the person and of the accom-
plished sinful act ; comp. Stélting. Beyond the simple ἐστί after δώρημα noth-
ing is to be supplied (so also Mangold), because the words without supple-
ment are quite in accordance with the Greek use of ὡς," and yield an appro-
priate sense, whereas none of the supplements that have been attempted are
suggested by the context. It has been proposed, e.g. after auapr. to supply
θάνατος εἰςῆλθεν (Grotius, Estius, Koppe), or τὸ κρῖμα or κατάκριμα (Bengel,
Klee, Reiche, Kéliner) ; or after ὡς : τό (Beza), which is indeed impossible,
but is nevertheless resorted to even by de Wette : ‘‘and not like that which
originated through one that sinned, so is the gift,” and Tholuck : ‘‘the gift
has a different character from that which has come through the one man. sin-
ning.” Comp. Philippi, who like Riickert and Dietzsch supplies merely
ἐγένετο after duapr. (and then after dwp.: éori),—-which however still yields

1 Dietzsch takes it differently, finding the justification—an intermingling to be avoid-
progress of the argument in this, that at ed throughout the entire train of thought
the end.a state of life adequate to the divine in our passage ; comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgen-
law may be established. This view how- feld’s Zeitschr. 1872, Ὁ. 167.
ever rests on an erroneous exposition of 2 Bernhardy, p. 352, Stallbaum, ad Plat.
δικαίωμα (see below), and generally on an Sympos. Ὁ. 179 BE.
erroneous mixing up of sanctification with

212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. —

no complete sentence, since the ἐγένετο is without a subject. The correct view
in substance is taken by Rothe, Ewald, and van Hengel ; while Fritzsche
still calls in the aid of a supplement after ἁμαρτ. (τὸ παράπτωμα ἐγένετο) ;
and Hofmann even wishes mentally to supply to καὶ... . δώρημα from what
precedes, to which it is attached, εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν as predicate ;*
whereas Mehring puts his rendering, which erroneously makes it a question
(comp. on ver. 15), in this form : ‘‘ And ought not the gift to be, as it was
through one that sinned?” — τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρῖμα x.t.2.] 56. ἐστί ; explanation of
the point of difference previously specified : For the judicial sentence redounds
From a single one to a sentence of condemnation, but the gift of grace from many
trespasses to a sentence of justification. —76 κρῖμα] quite general : the sentence
which God pronounces as judge ; comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7. For the kind of sentence,
which this shall prove to be in the concrete result, is indicated only by the
following εἰς κατάκριμα. The explanation which refers it to the divine an-
nouncement contained in Gen. ii. 17 (Fritzsche, Dietzsch) is erroneous, be-
cause the latter is a threat, and not ἃ κρῖμα ; and because the act of Adam
must have already preceded the κρῖμα. Others understand by it the sentence
of punishment pronounced against Adam, which has become a sentence of
punishment (sentence of death) against his posterity (κατάκριμα) (Reiche,
Riickert, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Hofmann) ;
but wrongly, because they thus neglect the pointed interchange of κρῖμα and
κατάκριμα, and in εἰς κατάκριμα place the stress on the condemned subject,
which however is not even mentioned. Linguistically erroneous is the view
of Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, and others, that τ. κρῖμα is the guilt. Nor does it
mean the state of being finally adjudged (Stélting). Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald,
and van Hengel hold the right view ; while Rothe, with unnecessary refin-
ing and gratuitous importation, takes τὸ μέν and τὸ dé by themselves as sub-
ject, κρῖμα and χάρισμα as predicates (‘‘the one effect is a righteous judg-
ment. . . . the other on the contrary a gift”). Dietzsch still more breaks
up the sentence, making κρῖμα and χάρισμα appositions, the former to τὸ μέν,
and the latter to τὸ δέ. — ἐξ ἑνός] has, like ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτ. afterwards,
the chief emphasis ; ἑνός is masculine on account of the previous δ ἑνὸς
ἁμαρτῆσ., not neuter (παραπτώματος), 88. Rothe, Mehring, Dietzsch, Stélting
and others think. This masculine however does not necessitate our taking
πολλῶν also as masculine (Hofmann), which would in itself be allowable
(comp. on 2 Cor. 1. 11), but is here opposed by the consideration that Paul
would have @xpressed the personal contrast to ἐξ ἑνός more symmetrically and
thoughtfully by the bare ἐκ πολλῶν. The Vulgate gives the right sense’:
*‘er multis delictis.” —£| points to the motive cause, producing the event
from itself : forth from one; see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 399. Just in the same
way the second éx. — εἰς κατάκριμα] sc. ἐστί, as in the first half of the verse,?

1 Τῦ would runthus: ‘‘ The.gift has not so
accrued abundantly to the many and passed
over to them, as was the case when such a be-
stowal ensued through one that sinned.”
This supplement is already guarded against
by the fact that κ. οὐχ down to δώρημα is the
obvious parallel of οὐχ ὡς +. παραπτ. down

to χάρισμα, and hence, like the latter, may
not be supplemented further than by ἐστί.
Any other course is arbitrary and artificial.

2In consequence of the way in which
Hofmann has supplemented the first half
of the verse, we should now take, in the
one instance, ἐξ ἐνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα εἰς τοὺς

CHAP, V5: 172 213
‘‘ut una cum praesentibus praeterita tamquam eadem in tabella repraesent-
et,” van Hengel. One was the cause (moving the divine righteousness)
that the judgment of God presents itself in the result as a punitive judgment
(namely, that on account of the sin of one all should die, ver. 12) ; many
sins [see Note LVIII. p. 225], on the other hand, were the cause (moving
the divine compassion) that the gift of grace results in concreto as a judg-
ment of justification. In the one case an wnity, in the other a multiplicity,
was the occasioning cause. In the second clause also, following the analogy
of κρῖμα in the first, τὸ χάρισμα is conceived of generally and abstractly ; the
χάρισμα redounds in the concrete case εἰς δικαίωμα, When God, namely, for-
gives the many sins and declares their subjects asrighteous. δικαίωμα, Which
is not, with Dietzsch, to be understood in the sense of the right framing of
life through sanctification of the Spirit—a view contrary to linguistic usage
and the context—is here also (comp. i. 32, 11. 26, vill. 4 ; Luke i. 6; Heb.
ix. 1,10 ; Rev. xv. 4; frequently in LXX. and Apocr., see Schleusner, Thes.
IL. p. 167 f.), according to its literal signification, in itself nothing else than
judicial determination, judicial sentence ; but it is to be taken here in the
Pauline sense of the divine δικαιοῦν, hence : the sentence defining righteousness,
the ordinance of God in which He completes the δικαίωσις as actus judicialis,
the opposite of κατάκριμα. Condition of righteousness (Luther and others),
‘“the actual status of being righteous” (Hofmann), would be represented by
δικαιοσύνη ; satisfaction of justice, compensation of justice (Rothe, Mehring
following Calovius, and Wolf), in accordance with which idea it may even
designate punishment in classical usage (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 864 E), it might
mean (Aristot. Hth. Nic. v. 7, 17: ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος), but never does
so in Biblical usage, to which this special definition 01 the sense is foreign.
Paul could convey the sense declaration as righteous, verdict of justification,
the more appropriately by δικαίωμα, since in Bar. ii. 17 the word is also sub-
stantially thus used (δώσουσι δόξαν x. δικαίωμα τῷ κυρίῳ, IN Hades they shall
not praise God and declare Him righteous). Compare also 2 Sam. xix. 28 ;
Jer. xi. 20; Prov. viii. 20; Rev. xv. 4, and xix. 8.1 The right view is
taken by Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald,
van Hengel, Holsten, Klépper, and Pfleiderer ; Riickert (also Maier) abides
by means of justification, following merely the form of the word without
empirical proof, while de Wette is undecided, and Stélting, without prece-
dent from linguistic usage (comp. above Luther and Hofmann), understands
the state of justification into which the state of grace (the γάρισμα) has passed.
These two conceptions however exclude any idea of succession, and are con-
current. — The addition ζωῆς in D. Vulg. is a correct gloss ; comp. ver. 18.

Ver. 17. The τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλ. παραπτ. εἰς δικαίωμα, just asserted in
contrast to the κατάκριμα proceeding from One, has now the seal of conjfirma-

πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν ἃ5 predicate to
τὸ κρῖμα; and in the other instance, ἐκ
πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα εἰς τοὺς
πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν as predicate to
τὸ xapioua,—notwithstanding that in both
eases a definition with εἰς is already given
by Paul himself. How enigmatically and

misleadingly he would have written !

1 Where τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων are the
divine verdicts of justification, which the
saints have received. The pure byssus is
their symbol. Compare Ewald, Joh. Schr.
in loe. p. 330. Diisterdieck understands it
otherwise (righteous acts).

214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

tion (γάρ) impressed on it through the triumphant certainty of the reign of
life, which must belong to the recipients of the δικαίωμα in the approaching
completion of the kingdom through the One Jesus Christ all the more un-
doubtedly, since the παράπτωμα of the One Adam brought death to reign.
The effect of the second One (the Adam μέλλων) in the direction of salvation
cannot in fact remain behind the effect which proceeded from the first One
in the direction of destruction. On this rests the evidence of the blissful
assurance, which with πολλῳ μᾶλλον stands forth as it were from the gloom
of the death previously described (comp. vv. 15, 9). The view that ver. 17
adduces the proof of the first half of ver. 16 being really proved by its second
half (Hofmann), is to be rejected for this very reason, that the demonstra-
tion in ver. 16 is so full and clear in itself, especially after ver. 15, that there
is no longer any necessity for receiving proof of its probative power, and no
reader could expect this. It is quite arbitrary in Rothe, especially looking
to the regular continuation by yap, to take ver. 16 as a parenthesis, and to
attach ver. 17 to ver. 15. For other views of the connection see Dietzsch,
who, in accordance with his own unsuitable rendering of δικαίωμα, finds here
the inner righteous condition of life verified by the final reign of life as its
outward manifestation. — διὰ τοῦ ἑνός] through the medium of the One, is
added, although ἐν ἑνὶ παραπτώματι had been already said (see the critical
remarks), in order to prepare the way with due emphasis for the διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ of the apodosis. Comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 7. — πολλῷ μᾶλλον]
Here also, as in ver. 15, the logical plus, the far greater certainty and evidence.
-- οὶ λαμβάνοντες] not those who believingly accept (Bengel, Rothe, van Hen-
gel, and others), but simply the recipients. [See Note LIX. p. 226.] The
present participle denotes the presence of the time of grace introduced by
Christ, which stands in the middle between the former reign of death and
the reign of life in the blissful future and determines the subjects of the lat-
ter ; comp. ver. 1]. -- τὴν περισσείαν] the abundant fulness (comp. 11. 4) of
grace, referring to ἐπερίσσευσε in ver. 15. — τῆς yap κ. τ. δωρεᾶς] distinguished,
as in ver. 15. But the emphasis of the description, climactic in the enthusi-
asm of victory, lies in the first instance on χάριτος, and then, as it advances,
on δικαιοσύνης, in contrast to the former tragic παράπτωμα. ---- τῆς diKatoc.] 15
that, in which the δωρεά consists. The whole characteristic description of
the subjects by οἱ. . . . λαμβάνοντες already implies the certainty with
which one may reckon in the case of those, who are honoured to receive
such abundance, on the final βασιλεύειν ἐν ζωῇ through Christ. — ἐν ζωῇ βασιλ-
evoovor] The word βασιλ. itself, and more especially the future, renders it
certain that the futwre Messianic ζωή is here meant ; in which, as the oppo-
site of the θάνατος, the pardoned and justified shall have the joint-dominion
of the new world (viii. 21), the κληρονομία and its δόξα (viii. 17), under Christ
the Head (1 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 12), in whose final manifestation
their life shall be gloriously manifested (Col. iii. 3 f.) Observe, further,
that in the apodosis Paul does not say ἡ ζωή βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τοὺς . ... . λαμβά-
vovrac in accordance with the protasis, but appropriately, and in harmony
with the active nature of the relation, ¢.e. of the future glorious liberty of
the children of God, places the subjects actively in the foreground, and

CHAP. Y.,' 18. 215

affirms of them the reigning in life. — The ’Iycot Χριστοῦ is added as if in
triumph, in contradistinction to the unnamed but well-known εἷς, who occa-
sioned the dominion of death. Finally, we should not fail to notice how in
this passage the glance proceeds from the status gratiae (λαμβάνοντες) back-
ward to the status irae (ἐβασίλευσε), and forward to the status gloriae (βασιλ-
εὑσουσι).

Ver. 18 f. Summary recapitulation of the whole parallel treated of from
ver. 12 onwards, so that the elements of likeness and unlikeness contained
in it are now comprehended in one utterance. Συλλογίζεται ἐνταῦθα τὸ πᾶν,
Theodore of Mopsuestia. The emergence of the ἄρα οὖν now ushering in the
conclusion, as well as the corresponding relation of the contents of ver. 18 f.
to the indication given by ὃς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in ver. 14, carries us
back to ver. 12; not merely to ver. 16 f. (de Wette, Fritzsche) ; or merely
to vv. 15-17 (Hofmann, Dietzsch). The right view is taken by Philippi,
Ewald, Holsten. — ἄρα οὖν] conclusive : accordingly then,’ in very frequent
use by the Apostle (vii. 3, 25, vili. 12, ix. 16, 18, xiv. 12, 19; Gal. vi. 10;
Eph. 11. 19 οὐ a/.), and that, contrary to the classical usage,’ at the beginning
of the sentence. For the necessary (contrary to Mehring’s view) completion
of the two sentences, which are in the sharpest and briefest manner com-
pressed as it were into a mere exclamation (Ewald), it is sufficient simply
to supply : res cessit, it has come, ἀπέβη (Winer, p. 546 [E. T. 587]), or ἐγένετο
(Grotius). See Buttmann’s newt. Gr. p. 338 [E. T. 394]. As zt therefore has
come to a sentence of condemnation for all men through One trespass, so also it
has come to justification of life (which has for its consequence the possession
of the future Messianic life, comp. ver. 21; John v. 28, 29) jor all men
through One justifying judgment. The supplying of τὸ κρῖμα ἐγένετο to the
first, and τὸ χάρισμα ἐγένετο to the second half (so Fritzsche and Riickert),
considering the opposite sense of the two subjects, renders the very com-
pressed discourse somewhat singular. — δ ἑνὸς δικ.} through one judicial
verdict (see on vv. 16, 19), namely, that which was pronounced by God on
account of the obedience of Christ rendered through His death. In strict
logic indeed the δικαίωμα, which is properly the antithesis of κατάκριμα (as in
ver. 16), should not be opposed to παράπτωμα ; but this incongruity of a
lively interchange of conceptions is not un-Pauline (comp. ver. 15). And
it is thoroughly unwarranted to assign to δικαίωμα here also, as in ver. 16,
significations which it has not ; such as actual status of being righteous (Hof-
mann, Stélting), fulfilment of right (Philippi, Mangold), making amends
(Rothe), righteous deed (Holsten), righteous life-condition of Christ (Dietzsch),
with which a new humanity begins, act of justification (Tholuck), virtuous-
ness (Baumgarten-Crusius), obedience (de Wette), and the like—definitions,
in which for the most part regard is had to the act of the death of Jesus
partly with and partly without the addition of the obedientia activa (comp.
also Klépper), while Fritzsche explains it of the incarnation and humilia-

1"Apa, “od internam potius causam cy; Baeumlein, p. 85; comp. Kiihner, II.
spectat,” οὖν, ‘‘magis ad externam,”’ p. 857.
Klotz, ad Devar. p.717. Comp. p. 178. The 2 Herm. ad Antig. 628, ad Viger. p. 823.
apa serves specifically for dialectic accura-

210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

tion of Christ (Phil. ii. 5, 8) as His rectefactum. Ewald interprets rightly :
“through One righteous sentence ;” so also van Hengel and Umbreit.
This alone is permitted by ver. 16. It is the One declaration of what is now
of right, that is, the judicial verdict of the being reconciled, which took place
on the part of God, on the ground of Christ’s sacrificial death—the conse-
quence therefore, of His ὑπακοή rendered in death—and which so far may
appear as the antithesis to the fall of Adam with the same right as in ver,
15 the grace and gift were adduced as the contrast to that fall. To take
the ἑνός as masculine (Vulgate, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther,
Calvin, and many others, including Tholuck, Fritzsche, Nielsen, Picard,
Klépper, Philippi, and Hofmann), is, seeing that no article is annexed,
unwarranted according to the analogy of the immediate context, vv. 17, 19 ;
or Paul would have only expressed himself in a way liable to be misunder-
stood (how differently in ver. 16 ἢ. Equally unwarranted is it to conceive
the verb to be supplied in the apodosis as in the future (Philippi, Dietzsch).
The judicial verdict is given and has redounded once and for ever to justifi-
cation of eternal life for all ; that is the great historical fact of salvation,
which Paul has in view and sets forth as a concrete event (not under the
point of view of a timeless abstraction, as Rothe thought) without con-
sidering how far it is now or in the future appropriated through faith by
the subjects.—In both halves of the verse πάντες ἄνθρωποι is simply all men,
asin ver. 12. At the same time it must be noted that in the second half
the relation is conceived in its objectivity. On the part of God it has come
to justification for al/ ; thus the case stands objectively ; the subjective attain-
ment of this universal justification, the realization of it for the individuals,
depends upon whether the latter believingly apprehend the δικαίωμα for their
own subjective δικαίωσις, or unbelievingly reject it. This dependence on a
subjective condition, however, did not belong to the scope of our passage,
in which the only object was to set forth the all-embracing blessed objec-
tive consequence of the ἕν δικαίωμα, in contrast to the all-destructive
objective consequence of the ἕν παράπτωμα. Hence just as little can any-
thing be deduced from our passage as from xi. 32 in favour of a final
ἀποκατάστασις. The distinction imported by Hofmann and Lechler : that
πάντες ἄνθρωποι means all without distinction, and πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, on the
other hand, all without exception, the swum total of mankind, is purely
fanciful ; πάντες means omnes, nemine excepto, alike whether the substantive
belonging to it, in accordance with the connection, has or has not the
article (‘‘articulus, cum sensus fert additus vel omissus, discrimen sen-
tentiae non facit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 519). Only when the article
stands before πάντες (consequently οἱ πάντες ἄνθ.) does the distinction emerge,
that we have to think of ‘‘ cunctos sive universos, i.e. singulos in unum
corpus colligatos” (Ellendt, p. 521) ; comp. Kriiger, ὃ 50, 11, 12 ; Kihner,
II. 1, p. 545.

Ver. 19. This final sentence, assigning a reason, now formally by the
recurrence of the ὥσπερ points back to ver. 12, with which the whole chain
of discourse that here runs to an end had begun. [See Note LX. p. 226.]
But that which is to be established by γάρ is not the how of the parallel com-

CHAP A Ve, we: RAG,
parison, which is set forth repeatedly with clearness (in opposition to
Rothe), but the blissful conclusion of that comparison in ver. 18 : εἰς
δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, upon which what is now expressed in ver. 19 impresses the
seal of certainty. Dietzsch thinks that the purport, which is kept general,
of ver. 18 is now to be established from the personal life, But the right
interpretation of δικαίωμα and of δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται is opposed to this ©
view. -- - ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθ. of πολλοί] [See Note LXI. p. 227.] The many
were set down as sinners; for according to ver. 12 ff. they were indeed,
through the disobedience of Adam, put actually into the category of sinners,
because, namely, they sinned in and with the fall of Adam. Thus through
the disobedience of the one man, because all had part in it, has the position of
all become that of sinners. The consequence of this, that they were subjected
to punishment (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact and others), were
treated as sinners (Grotius, Flatt, B6hme, Krehl and others), and the like, is
not here expressly included, but after the foregoing is obvious of itself.
Fritzsche (comp. Koppe and Reiche) has : through their death they ap-
peared as sinners.‘ On the one hand this gratuitously imports something
(through their death), and on the other it does violence to the expression
κατεστάθ., which denotes the real putting into the position of sinners, where-
by they de facto came to stand as sinners,* peccatores constituti sunt (James
iv. 4; 2 Pet. i. 8; Heb. v. 1, viii. 3; 2 Macc. xv. 2; 3 Macc. yoy Lelie
Rep. p. 564 A ; Conv. p. 222 B ; examples from Xenophon in Sturz, Il. p.
610), as is required by the ruling normal clause ἐφ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον in ver. 12.
The Apostle might have written ἐγενήθησαν (as Dietzsch explains the kazeor.),
but he has already in view the antithesis δίκαιοι καταστ., and expresses himself
in conformity to it ; hence also he does not put πάντες (which might have
stood in the first clause), but οἱ πολλοί. --- διὰ ὑπακοῆς] through obedience. 'The
death of Jesus was κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν His obedience to the will of the Father, Phil.
ii, 8; Heb. v. 8. But this designation is selected as the antithesis to the
παρακοή of Adam, and all the more certainly therefore it does not here mean
“the collective life-obedience” (Lechler, comp. Hofmann, Dietzsch and
others), but must be understood as the deed of atonement willed by God
(ver. 8 ff.), to which we owe justification, and the ethical premiss of which
on Christ’s side is righteousness of life, although Hofmann improperly
rejects this view as a groundless fancy.—dixatot κατασταθήσονται] shall be placed
in the category of righteous. The future refers® to the future revelation of

1 ὅ0 also Julius Miiller, v. d. Siinde, IT. Ὁ.
485, ed. 5, evading the literal sense: “the
many have become declared (as it were
before the divine judgment-seat) as sinners
through the disobedience of the one man
(as the determining initial point of sinful
development), by the fact, that they have
been subjected to death.” See on the
other hand Hofmann, who properly urges
that they did not become sinners only
along with their dying, but immediately
through Adam’s disobedience. But the
how of their doing so is infact just the ἐφ᾽

ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, according to our concep-
tion of these words.

2 Dietzsch should not have raised the ob-
jection that it ought to have been εἰς
ἁμαρτωλούς, OF ἐν ἁμαρτωλοῖς. See generally
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 274.

3 Corresponding to the βασιλεύσουσι in
ver. 17, and hence not to be explained in a
mere general way of the certain expecta-
tation or conviction (Mehring), as Hof-
mann also takes it in the sense of μέλλει
Aoyigerdar, iv. 24. Comp. on the other
hand ii. 13, 16; and see on Gal. v. 5.

218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

glory after the resurrection (Reiche, Fritzsche, Klépper) ; not to the fact
that the multitude of believers is conceived of as not yet completed, and
consequently the justifying of them is chiefly regarded as a succession of
cases to come (comp. 111. 20, 30). The how of the δίκαιοι κατασταθ. cannot be
found in an actual becoming righteous, as result of the divine work of grace,
at the close of the saving process (Dietzsch), which would offend against the
whole context since ver. 12, and anticipate the contents of ch. vi. In truth
the mode which Paul had in view is beyond doubt, after the development
of the doctrine of justification in chs. iii.‘iv. God has forgiven believers
on account of the death of Christ, and counted their faith as righteousness,
Thus the obedience of the One has caused that at the judgment the πολλοί
shall by God’s sentence enter into the category of the righteous,’ as the dis-
obedience of the One had caused the πολλοί to enter the opposite. In both
cases the causa meritoria is the objective act of the two heads of the race
(the sin of Adam—the death of Christ), to whom belong the πολλοί on both
sides ; while the subjective mediating cause is the individual relation to those
acts (communion in Adam’s fall—faith). It is a mistake therefore to quote
this passage against the Protestant doctrine of justification (Reithmayr and
Bisping), as if the making righteous were designated as sanctification.
But we are not entitled to carry the comparison between Adam and Christ
further than Paul himself has done.

Vv. 20, 21. The comparison between Adam and Christ is closed. But
in the middle between the two stood the law! [See Note LXII. p. 227.]
How therefore could Paul leave unnoticed the relation of the law to both,
the relation of this essential intervening element in the divine plan of sal-
vation, the continuity of which was not to be hindered by the law, but, on
the contrary, advanced to its blissful goal? The mention of it presented
itself necessarily to him, especially after the utterance already contained in
ver. 13, even without our thinking of an opponent’s objection,’ or, at least, of
persons who fancied that they must themselves furnish something in order
to secure for themselves eternal life (Hofmann) ; but it cannot be regarded
as the proper goal of the entire discussion (Th. Schott), which would not at
all correspond to so succinct an indication. — παρεισῆλθεν] there came in
alongside (of the ἁμαρτία, which had already come in, ver. 12) into the
world.* The notion of secrecy (Vulgate : subintravit, comp. Erasmus,
Annot., Send.) is not implied in παρά in itself, but would require to be sug-
gested by the context, as in Gal. ii. 4; Pol. i. 7, 3; i. 8, 4; ii. 55, 3 (where
λάθρᾳ stands along with it) ; comp. παρεισάγω, παρεισδύω, παρεισφέρω k.T.A.,
which likewise receive the idea of secrecy only from the context. But this

1 Consequently not through any internal
communication or infusion of the moral
quality of righteousness ; comp. Ddllinger,
Christenthum u. K. p. 200 f. 190, ed. 2. See
on the other hand K6stlin in the Jahrb. 7.
D. Theol. 1856, p. 95. Déllinger erroneously
explains κατασταϑήσ. : ‘established in right-
eousness.””

2So even Cyril and Grotius ; compare

Mangold. The latter finds here a proof of
the preponderantly Jewish- Christian char-
acter of the readers. But with as little
right as it might be found in Gal. iii.

3 See Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 651; and van
Hengel in loc. Comp. Philo in Loesner, p.
252, especially de temul. p. 263 C, where
παρεισελϑεῖν ἐῶσα Means juxta se intrare
sinens. On the idea comp. Gal. iii. 19.

CHAP. V., 20, 21. 219

is not at all the case here, because this idea would be at variance with the
solemn giving of the law (Gal. ili. 19 ; Acts vii. 53), and the reverence of
the Apostle for it (Rom. vii. 12 ff.). Reiche, Rothe, Tholuck, Riickert, and
Philippi import the idea that the law is designated as an accessory insti-
tution, or its coming in as of subordinate importance in comparison with
that of sin (Hofmann), as an element not making an epoch (Weiss, Dietzsch),
It was not such, Gal. iv. 24, nor is this sense implied in the word itself.
Linguistically incorrect (for παρεισέρχ. does not mean coming in between,
but coming in alongside) is the view of others : that it came in the middle
between Adam (according to Theodoret and Reithmayr, Abraham) and
Christ (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Usteri, Ewald, Bis-
ping, and others). Nor does παρεισῆλθεν mean: it came in in opposition
thereto, i.e. in opposition to sin (Mchring). Such a reference must nec-
essarily have been implied, as in Gal. ii. 4, in the context, but would be out
of place here on account of the following ἵνα «.7.2., which Mehring inap-
propriately takes as painful irony. Finally that παρά means obiter, ad tem-
pus (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius ἃ Lapide) isa pure fancy. — iva
πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτ.] in order that the transgression might be increased. [See
Note LXIII. p. 227.] The παράπτωμα can only be intended in the sense in
which the reader must have understood it in virtue of the preceding text,
ver. 15 ff., therefore of the Adamite transgression. This was the concrete
destructive evil, which existed in the world as the beginning of sin and the
cause of universal death. By the law, however, it was not to be abolished
or annulled, but on the contrary (observe the prefixing of πλεονάσῃ) it was
to be increased, i.e. to obtain accession in more and more παραπτώμασι. If
therefore τὸ παράπτωμα is not to be taken collectively (Fritzsche, de Wette,
van Hengel, and others) just as little is iva πλεονάσῃ to be rationalized so
that if may be interpreted Jogice, of greater acknowledgment of sin (Grotius,
Wolf, Nielsen, Baur), or of the consciousness of sin (J. Miller), since the
corresponding ὑπερεπερίσσ. cannot be so taken ; nor so, that iva is to be ex-
plained as ecbatic (Chrysostom, and several Fathers quoted by Suicer, Thes.
I. p. 1454, Koppe, Reiche), which is never correct, and is not justified by
the groundless fear of a blasphemous and un-Pauline idea (Reiche). Comp.
Gal. 111. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56 ; and generally oni. 34. Augustine (in Ps. cii.
c. 15) rightly says by way of describing the intervening aim referred to :
‘‘non crudeliter hoc fecit Deus, sed consilio medicinae ;... . augetur
morbus, crescit malitia, quaeritur medicus et totum sanatur.” — παράπτωμα
and ἁμαρτία are not certainly distinguished as Tittmann, Synon. p. 47, de-
fines ; nor yet, as Reiche thinks, simply thus, that both words indicate the
same idea only under different figures (this would be true of παράπτωμα and
ἁμάρτημα) ; but in this way, that τὸ παράπτωμα invariably indicates only the
concrete sin, the sinful deed ; while ἡ ἁμαρτία may have as well the concrete
(as always when it stands in the plural, comp. on Eph. ii. 1) as the abstract
sense. It has the latter sense in our passage, and it appears purposely
chosen. For if the Adamite transgression, which was present in the world
of men as a fact and with its baneful effect, received accession through the
law, so that this evil actually existing in humanity since the fall increased,

220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

the sum total of sin in abstracto, which was among men, was thereby en-
larged ; the dominion of sin became greater, both extensively and intensively
(comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 73). Therefore the discourse pregresses
thus : οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, and then ἐβασίλ. ἡ ἁμαρτία. ---- oi] where, local,
of the domain, where etc. This field is generally the world of men, in which,
however, the increase in sin here meant came from the people of the law, from
Israel ; but without the sphere of the οὗ being limited to the latter, since
immediately, in ver. 21, he brings forward the wniversal point of view as it
prevails throughout the section (in opposition to Hofmann). The temporal
rendering : when (Grotius, de Wette, Fritzsche, Stélting) is likewise lin-
guistically correct (time being represented wnder the aspect of space, comp.
ag’ ov and the like), but less in harmony with the analogous passages, iv.
15 ; 2 Cor. 11. 17 (οὐ. . . . éxei). — ὑπερεπερίσσ. | it became over-great, supra
modum redundavit. The ἐπλεόνασεν had to be surpassed. Comp. 2 Cor.
vil. 4; 1 Tim. i. 14; Mark vii. 37; ὃ Thess. i. 3. But that it had sur-
passed itse/f (Hofmann), is a definite reference gratuitously introduced.
The two correlative verbs are related simply as comparative and superlative.
— iva ὥσπερ x.t.2.| in order that, just as (formerly) sin reigned in virtue of
death, so also (divine) grace should reign by means of righteousness unto eternal
life through Jesus Christ our Lord. This is the whole blessed aim of the
ὑπερεπερίσσ. ἡ χάρις. Rothe incorrectly desires to treat οὗ δὲ. . . . χάρις as
a parenthesis. This proposition is in fact so essential, that it is the nec-
essary premiss for the opening up of that most blessed prospect. See more-
over Dietzsch. —év τῷ θανάτῳ] not unto death (Luther, Beza, Calvin, and’
many others), nor yet in death as the sphere of its rule (Tholuck, Philippi),
but instrumentally, corresponding to the antithesis διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν
αἰώνιον (which belong together). Sin has brought death into the world
with it, and subjected all to death (ver. 12), ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον ; thus sin
exercised its dominion in virtue of death. This dominion however has
given way to the dominion of grace, whose rule does not indeed
abolish death, which having once entered into the world with sin has
become the common lot of all, in itself, but accomplishes its object all the
more blissfully, in that it confers a righteousness redounding to everlasting
life." And grace exercises this bliss-bringing rule through the merit of its
personal Mediator (πρόξενος, Chrysostom) Christ, who has earned it for men
through His expiatory death. The full triwmphant conclusion, διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ
Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (comp. vii. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 57 al.) belongs to the
entire thought ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ. . . . ζ. αἰώνιον, upon which it impresses
the seal. Here, also, the δικαιοσύνη is the righteousness of faith (not of life).

Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR.

XLIX. Ver. 1. ἔχομεν.

The textual question of this verse is one of extreme difficulty. That the
weight of external authority is in favor of ἔχωμεν cannot be doubted. But it is

17The pregnant sense, which Hofmann, seeks to apply analogically here also (comp.
on ver. 14, attributes to the βασιλεύειν, and Dietzsch), is here least of all appropriate.

NOTES. 221

equally beyond doubt that the internal argument points toward the indicative.
The remark of Godet is justified by an examination of what the advocates of
the other reading have brought forward in its support: ‘‘ No exegete has been
able satisfactorily to account for this imperative suddenly occurring in the
midst of a didactic development.’”? The Apostle seems clearly, in these verses,
to be presenting the blessed consequences of the doctrine which he has estab-
lished by argument. That, in such a presentation, he should state the first of
these consequences (or, indeed, the second and third also), only in the form of
an exhortation to lay hold upon it, is, though not impossible, contrary to all
probability.

L. Ver. 2. καὶ καυχώμεθα.

καί, as Meyer holds, is to be connected with ἔχομεν of ver.1. There are three
consequences of justification by faith, which the Apostle mentions in the first
half of the chapter (1-i1): peace with God, joy in hope of the future glory,
and joy in present tribulations, These are the main points of the section, and
are set forth in co-ordinate sentences. The other parts of the passage are subor-
dinate: dv od... ἑστήκαμεν of ver, 2 to the statement of ver. 1, and vy. 3b-11 to ver.
3a. The cause or ground of the believer's rejoicing in tribulations is, that he
knows that, ina certain way and by acertain process, they lead to the confirma-
tion of his hope of the future.